>> the senate is gaveling in after a five-week recess. senators will spend the afternoon on general speeches. we expect to hear about the resolution for a military strike in syria with senate majority leader harry reid starting off the remarks. then at 5 eastern, senators begin debate on two judicial nominations for new york state. live senate coverage here on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. shepherd of our souls, the center of our joy, we look to you today for strength and wisdom. we acknowledge that unless you guard our nation, our efforts to find security

are futile. today, illuminate the minds of our senators with the light of your insights, enabling them to act decisively as they anticipate the forces that threaten freedom in our world. lead them on the path that will bring life, liberty and joy. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation

under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., september 9, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tim kaine, a senator from the commonwealth of virginia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i just had a brief conversation with the chaplain. he came down to wish me well upon our return. he indicated that he was going to do a special prayer for the senate in this time of crisis that we have. and i i always admire his lookig

out for us spiritually. and i'm -- you know, that prayer is for democrats, republicans, all of us. and it's really heart warming to come from him. not only is he our chaplain but he is a retired admiral in the united states navy. he has been all over the world in that capacity. we appreciate him. we don't acknowledge that as often as we should, but i do appreciate his always being available and always being so kind and thoughtful to every one of us. i now move to proceed to calendar 166, h.j. res. 21 -- s.j.res 21. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 166, s.j. res. 21, to authorize the limited and specified use of united states armed forces against syria.

mr. reid: mr. president, this evening the senate will move to -- will proceed to executive session to consider a couple judges, would-be judges caproni and broderick, both for the southern district of new york. at 5:30, there will be two roll call votes on confirmation of those nominations, although we may only have one. we will get both of them done today. mr. president, i just move to proceed to the joint resolution on the part of last week by the foreign relations committee to authorize limited use of force against syria. this matter demands the attention of the senate and this country, and it is to this resolution the senate will turn. regardless of where senators stand on the merits of this issue, all should agree that we should have this debate. i hope that all senators will support proceeding to this measure. that vote will occur wednesday

some time on the motion to proceed. under a previous order at 11:00 tomorrow morning, the senate was to have a motion to proceed to the energy efficiency bill. of course, it's obvious that we aren't going to be able to do that. i'll work with the republican leader to reach a consent agreement to defer consideration of that bill to a later time. on the syria resolution, i intend the senate should have a full and open debate. i encourage senators to come to the floor to begin that debate. also this week, president obama will come to the capitol to address the democratic caucus. he has extended this invitation to the republicans also. i have also, but i haven't heard back from the republicans as to whether they wish to hear from the president. president obama will address the nation tomorrow evening. senior administration officials will brief all senators in a classified setting on wednesday and during today there are going

to be other meetings in the white house with senators, both democrats and republicans. so, mr. president, the senate will give this matter the serious attention that it deserves. mr. president, the first large-scale military use of deadly chemical weapons occurred almost 100 years ago when the german army deployed chlorine gas during world war i. during that war -- excuse me. during that war, world war i,

there were 1,200,000 casualties from attacks with deadly toxins. chlorine gas, mustard gas and other terrible deathly and destructive chemical agents. great britain, austria, hungary, france, germany, italy and the united states all suffered losses. this is a horrible weapon, wrote german major carl van zingler who reported a firsthand battlefield account of the carnage to superior officers. that's what he said. this is a horrible weapon. 100,000 soldiers died, mr. president, and most other casualties were debilitated for life by exposure to these deadly toxins. the effects of these killers were horrific. those that didn't die suffered blindness, burns, blisters and labored breathing. and for those who died, the end was as terrible as anything one can imagine.

a great world war i era poet who was from great britain named wilfred owen wrote that gas soldiers crowd out -- cried out like men on fire as they drowned in air thick with poison. the world was horrified by the gruesomeness of these new evil weapons of war. and so as a global community, we agreed that these weapons should be banished from the battlefield forever. but despite the success of global efforts to eliminate their use, today the syrian government the -- is the second largest holder of chemical weapons in the world, just shortly behind north korea. the well-documented use of these toxic and unsavory stockpiles by president obama bashar al-assad's regime is a certain violation of the overwhelming international consensus forged against these weapons nearly 10

decades ago. it's also a clear violation of pupil decency. but this is not the first time that assad has used chemical weapons against its own citizens. we all heard in the classified briefings a number of times that these have been used. but, mr. president, this is the most gruesome and extensive. i watched this morning a film in my office. it takes about 13 minutes. pictures taken following the dropping of those horrible weapons. i will never get that out of my mind, mr. president. little baby boys and girls

dressed in colorful play clothes boys and girls, some looked like teenagers, retching and spasms, arms, and of course older people. but you see, these poisons killed the kids first. their little bodies can't take this as well as older folks. it kills the older people, but more slowly. so the well-documented use of these unsavory stockpiles by assad is a certain violation of the overwhelming international consensus forged against these

weapons 10 decades past. i have talked about human decency, mr. president. it's a clear violation of human decency. the august 21 attacks killed more than a thousand civilians, including hundreds of these children. this week we'll further examine the evidence growing, proving the viciousness of these attacks and discuss their brutal results. the innocent civilians killed by the syrian government during those attacks died terrible deaths, deaths just as painful and shocking as those suffered in the battlefields of world war i, death just as terrible as those that convinced the global community almost 100 years ago to outlaw the use of such brutal tactics against soldiers and of course against innocent civilians that assad murdered last month. the evidence of the assad regime

and their using outlawed nerve agents against its own citizens is clear and very convincing. the syrian government has worked to hide the gruesome evidence. they have done it a number of different ways, but after the bodies have been cleared away, they sent a barrage of weaponry in there. artillery, tanks just blasting the ground, blasting the ground to destroy any evidence. they couldn't destroy it. it's still there. but they tried. they worked very, very hard to hide these gruesome attacks by repeatedly bombing the site of these grizzly grisly, unforgettable occurrences. without question, this brutality demands a response.

satellite imagery, signals intercepts and even amateur video shot by eyewitnesses -- and i talked about that, mr. president -- paint a clear picture of the brutality of this awful regime. that is why president barack obama signed approval two weeks ago for targeted military action, action that will hold president assad accountable for these halloweenous acts. -- for its heinous acts. congress has done its due diligence. since president obama announced it would take congressional approval for this action by syria, the senate has held many, many hearings and briefings, in addition to five classified all-members briefings. there are more briefings and much debate to come this week, including open debate here in the senate. the senate foreign relations committee on a bipartisan basis passed a resolution that restricts the use of military force to 60 days with a single 30-day extension.

the resolution reflects president obama's proposal for limited military action including strikes of limited duration and limited scope, and the resolution plainly states that there may be no u.s. military boots on the ground. america's intention as specified in the resolution is not to engage in an open-ended conflict or an invasion, nor is the commander in chief's intention to commit ground troops to this conflict or effect regime change. the united states senate will be voting, rather, to uphold a century-long consensus that chemical weapons have no place in the battlefield and certainly no place in attacking innocent civilians. this standard demands any government, a dictator or any other government who have used chemical weapons to be held accountable. some may disagree with my conclusions, mr. president. i don't expect everyone to agree with this statement i'm giving here today, but that's anyone's

right, but this is my firm conviction. today, many americans say that these atrocities are none of our business, that they're not our concern. i disagree. any time the powerful turn such weapons of terror and destruction against the powerless, it is our business. and the weapons in question are categorically different. chemical weapons you see can kill not just dozens or hundreds of people but tens of thousands of innocents in a single attack. tens of thousands. these weapons don't just pose a threat to the syrian people. or to our allies in the region. they pose a threat to every one of us, every american. and in particular, every member of the united states armed armed forces. if we allow assad's use of

chemical weapons to go unchecked and unanswered, hostile forces around the world will also assume these terrible attacks of demons like assad are permissible, they're okay. that, america cannot allow. that is why the massacres in syria are our business and our concern, both as humans and as americans. america's willingness to stand for what is right should not end at its borders. our intervention on before of those in danger hasn't always been popular. look back at history. trz there's always been a part of our society that prefers isolation. look prior to world war i. look, mr. president. prior to world war ii. some prefer isolation. that's the easy thing to do. but sitting on the sideline

isn't what made the united states of america the greatest nation in the world in years past and yes, today. and sitting on the sidelines won't make us a better nation tomorrow. as america faces yet another crisis of conscience, another opportunity to intervene on behalf of humanity, my mind returns to that turning point in the world's history when the united states of america faced down an evil regime that murdered millions of innocent citizens. millions and millions of civilians and prisoners of war were murdered by dwas gas in nazi death camps. treb blinka, auschwitz. never again, swore the world. never again would we permit the use of these poisonous weapons of war. mr. president, 14 blocks from

here down constitution avenue is the holocaust human museum. you walk in there and you'll see a quote. it's on the wall. it's from dante's famous "inferno." "the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality." i repeat. "the hottest places in hell are reserved for hose who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality." i've thought about those words very often and very often lately. as i've considered whether america should take action to prevent further atrocities in syria. in europe in world war ii, far too many were neutral. far too many around the world were neutral.

far too many in america were neutral until -- mr. president, world war ii, six million jews and tens of thousands of gypsies, disabled people, gay people, and political dissidents, were murdered. never again. now we're faced with that choice again. some say it's not our fight. some say syria is too far away. some say it's not in our security interest. russia, china, britain, france, germany, italy, and the united states, we should all remember our history. 1.2 million casualties in world war ii from these poisons.

i'm sorry, from world war i. 1.2 million. we should remember our history. rabbi hillel, a respected and famous scholar, said more than 2,000 years ago -- quote -- "if i care only for myself, what am i? if not now, when? i, harry reid, say if not now, when? i believe america must set the example for the rest of the world. if america must once again lead, as we have before and we will again, to set an example for the world, so be it. that's america. that's who we are as a country. that's what we do as a country. that's what we stand as a

country. that's where we stand as a country. that is the american tradition of which i am proud, and a tradition which i have faith will continue. we are the united states of america. mr. president, there's an order outstanding that i would ask that -- ask unanimous consent that the order until 5:00 today be modified on the motion to proceed with other aspects of the order remaining in place. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved and under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of debate on the motion to proceed to s.j. reds 21 until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein up to ten minutes each.

the senator from indiana. mr. coats: i ask unanimous consent to speak to the issue that the majority leader just addressed, and i don't anticipate speaking for more than 12 or 15 minutes. i know that the minority leader is delayed in being able to be here, i'd be happy to defer to him when he arrived or happy to defer to someone coming back to talk on the business of the day. but with that consent --. the presiding officer: without objection so ordered. mr. coats: thank you. president obama will make his case to the american people tomorrow, finally, explaining why he wants to take military action against syria. this explanation is long overdue. i think i have a pretty good idea of what i expect he'll say. first he'll explain that we have

compelling evidence that it was assad himself who used long banned chemical weapons to murder his own people. this is not seriously contested. neither i nor perhaps i think any of my colleagues here dispute these sad facts. it's been well documented by our intelligence sources, as a member of that committee, i've that had access to those sources and i don't doubt the conclusion of the president and others that assad is responsible for this attack. the president will also most likely explain that such a horrendous violation of international norms deserves a worldwide response of condemnation. who could possibly look at those standards and those rooms full of dead children and not agree that the perpetrators have to face consequences for their crimes? the president also will surely

discuss the issue of credibility. he's likely to maintain as did he recently in stockholm that it's not his own credibility at stake, nor even american credibility, but the credibility of the international community that would be harmed by inaction. i agree with those who say the president's credibility and our nation's credibility are linked. they are. however, with his now notorious and i believe ill considered redline comment president obama has forced us to debate another military attack in yet another middle eastern country. unfortunately, it appears the purpose of the attack, this military attack, first and foremost, is perhaps to defend his own credibility. i'm certain that if the president had not drawn his red line, we would not be having this discussion. in that case, assad's use of

such weapons would be roundly condemned as yet another example of his horrendous brutality. but we would be no more eager to engage militarily in his civil war than we have been as the other 100,000 syrian people were being slaughtered by more conventional means. make no mistake, it is the credibility issue that has brought us to this pass, and the credibility issue is of president obama's own making, his and his alone. so tomorrow evening the president will need to explain to the american public exactly what will be achieved by this limited, focused attack, as described by the administration, beyond a simple token punishment for a horrendous crime in defense of his credibility. the president has said that the proposed limited attack is to be a shot across the bow.

his secretary of state, secretary kerry, has said it's going to be unbelievably small. we need to know what the plan is and will be, should president assad be undeterred by this unbelievably small, this shot across the bow attack. what if he isn't? what then? then what do we do next? the president needs to explain that. we need to know how this escalation is likely to influence extremist radical fighters now active in syria, extremist radical fighters. that's not a line again good guys and bad guys here. there's the ininfill the legislation of al qaeda, other terrorist organizations and individuals with those seeking

to overturn assad. so it's not a clear -- it's not clear just how syria would turn out should assad be deposed. these extremist fighters i don't think will be overly concerned with an unbelievably small shot across the bow response by the united states. what will hezbollah and hamas and al qaeda affiliated fighters do when this -- quote -- "show of force" is over? what is the president's plan of action if the chemical weapons fall into the hands of these anti-american jihadists? and how about the always threatened spillover of the syria conflict into lebanon or turkey or jordan? quill an attack intended to slap assad's wrists while defending obama's credibility make expansion of the conflict more likely or less likely? and most importantly, the president needs to explain to the american people more thoroughly exactly how america's

national security and best interest will be served by this response. the president in my opinion must also address additional concerns which are widely, almost universally shared by the american people. we all know that taking america to war without support from the people is the surest path to disaster. this, i suggest, must be avoided and the president is going to have to make his case was to how to avoid that. over this last week i visited with hoosiers from across indiana to gather their input. through these visits as well as calls and emails by the thousands, the vast majority, shockingly majority of hoosiers i have heard from are opposed to u.s. military engagement in syria. like all con conscientious lawms i know i have to balance the expressed views of my constituents with my own judgment on how best to

represent their interest and the interests of our country. in this case, i must first ask myself what do the people back home in my home state know that many of the rest of us here in washington perhaps do not or at least have expressed? first, the people back home know that america has been at war in far-off lands more than a decade, 12 years on. they have seen long, repeated dploimedz deployments of their loved ones and have dean season the body bags come home. they are aware of sacrifices that have been made in the name of protecting our interests. but they are less aware of positive results of those sacrifices. they say sea iraq descending again into conflict as its own citizens continue to slaughter one another because of different interpretations of the koran or different political motivations or pure, outright quest for

power. they see a corrupt government there that authorizes rearn overflights and in. hoosiers see in afghanistan so deeply corrupt and ungrateful to the united states that the current regime tries to extort huge ransom payments simply to permit to us remove equipment and personnel from that sorry country. they do not see meaningful progress toward a democratic, stable and humane government that was to be the objective of american sacrifice of blood and treasure. and they do not see how our 12 years of effort have contributed to our own national security interests. hoosiers look at the spiraling disaster in egypt, where the choices have been an extremist, deeply antiamerica islamic razz calism or a brutal -- radicalism

or a brutal and undemocratic dictatorship, both benefiting from billions of american taxpayer dollars spent on weapons or lining uniformed pockets. in the meantime, fellow christians are being killed in their churches. simply put, the people of indiana do not see that american policy and action has attained meaningful results in the middle east. instead, they see a region of continuing and increasing violence, chaos, and disintegration. they are war weary and they are discouraged that after more than a decade of wars that have not produced the desired outcomes, we perhaps are about to engage in a third. what they don't see is an articulate response. they don't know what our regional security is in the middle east because no one is examining it, much less pursuing it. they cannot measure progress because they don't know the

destination and they cannot evaluate this latest proposal for a fourth military engagement in the middle east because they cannot see how it contributes to our own security here at home. more importantly, they worry that a focused, limited attack on syria will end up being something else entirely because so little thought has been devoted to the potential unintended consequences. yes, they are war weary, but the american people are also war wise. in addition to the above unanswered questions, for me, one of the most important questions is how this proposed limited strike will affect iran's perception of resolve and our ability to prevent that country from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. it's not so much what we do or how we do it but how iran perceives the action that we take. this may be the most significant question of all, because, like

syria, iran poses threats -- unlike syria, iran poses threats to our core national security interests. part of the administration's argument is that to do nothing would embolden the iranian regime as they pursue their own weapons of mass destruction programs. but i think we have to raise the question: is that really so? or is it, perhaps, the reverse? will a limited punitive attack discourage the mullahs in iran because of some degree of destruction -- number unbelievably small -- or will it actually encourage the iranians because there is no follow-up option or broader strategic concept in forming our policy? if an attack is ineffective in altering assad's behavior or fortune, will it not encourage iran in pursuing its own weapons program? i have not heard the administration address this question.

a fourth military engagement in the middle east will make it harder to assemble popular and political support for actions should iran's behavior make that necessary. my constant fear here during the past several years, as i have been engaged on the iranian issue of pursuit of nuclear weapons, has been that our country will be too militarily, politically and economically exhausted to confront the real strategic enemy when our core interests require it. i fear that a syria attack will make this problem even more difficult. to my knowledge, no one has yet to address this question within the administration which president obama, like the previous three presidents, has declared a nuclear weapon weapons-capable iran to be unacceptable. i think this is a critical question that we must have to ask ourselves. for all of those who are saying

we will change the perception of iran to the point where they will change their behavior in the pursuit of nuclear weapons by a -- quote -- "unbelievably small shot across the bow or military response that could lead us into further conflict in the middle east" -- that this undermines our credibility. i think the question has to be asked: is the reverse going to happen as a consequence of all this? this is a deeply historic and profound moment for our nation. it carries an importance that goes well beyond syria or even the middle east. this debate carries important consequences for the relationship between the executive and the legislative branches of our government. to refuse the commander in chief war-making authorities when he has asked for them is not a decision that any of us can take lightly. we must all balance the views of the people we represent even when they have been nearly

unanimous with other elements, such as the abstract, unknownable geostrategic factors that could carry profound consequences, not just for this year or next year or this generation, but for many generations. and such as the compelling moral arguments that resonate with special strength and our unique nation guided by birth for moral principles. and now, even the constitutional challenges that could affect the delicate balance we have maintained for two centuries. mr. president, i have been wrestling with and i will weigh all that i have said and before i announce how i intend to vote on the resolution before us, i will defer to the president's request to address the nation. in my opinion, consequential actions proposed by the president need to be clarified and numerous questions need to be answered before we grant the

authority to the president to engage america into yet another middle east conflict. mr. president, with, that i yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call

be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum call will be vitiated. mr. nelson: mr. president, i would like to address the subject of syria. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: thank you, mr. president. first of all, i want to commend anyone that is listening to my voice to view the videos that the intelligence community that is released that came from social media. they are 13 videos -- that came from a body of in excess of 100 videos but they show the horror of what happens to the human body with an attack by weapons of

mass destruction, in this case chemical weapons. in this case a gas called sarin. when the president speaks to the nation on tuesday, it is my understanding he will show clips of those videos because i think that very few americans have seen the extent of those videos, even though they have been shown on some cable shows in some limited amounts. but if they could see the range of why almost a century ago in 1925 the nations of the world came together in a treaty, this was after the use of chemical weapons in world war 1, and this treaty

banned the use of chemical weapons anywhere any time, including in war. because of the horrific nature that their use causes. that was subsequently in the 1990's. reaffirm, mr. president, in a convention or some kind of conclave where the nations of the world, something, i believe in excess of 180 nations signed banning the use of chemical weapons. and if you will watch videos, you will see why. you will see what happens to an innocent human being as they struggle for life

before the throes of death overtake them. you will see on these videos . and, of course, parents may want to use discretion because it's going to make a lasting impression. you will see how the body starts to shut down by the nerves being attacked. now, interestingly, for the first time in a cbs interview today, president assad of syria has said, has admitted today that syria has chemical weapons. up to this point that was denied. and no wonder he would want

to deny. because when you see what happens in the use of them and what it does to the human nervous system -- and i don't want to be graphic because i want anybody listening to what i'm saying to watch them. and i hope the president will show them tuesday night. to see how the human body convulses and how when it attacks the nervous system, the convulsions and twitching and what happens to the face and respiratory system and all the evidence that comes from that, the american people need to know what we are dealing with not just in syria but in other nations that possess

chemical weapons. not only sarin, which was the gas used here, but also mustard gas and also a toxin called v.x. that directly attacks the nervous system. and does not have to be inhaled like mustard gas or sarin to do its evil deed, but instead can be absorbed v.x. through the skin. and so, if the american people will understand the consequences of the use of this, then we'll understand why it is classified as a weapon of mass destruction

along with biological weapons of mass destruction introducing some plague among a community of innocents. and, of course, the weapon of mass destruction that most everybody recognizes, the nuclear weapons. they're all three weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and nuclear. and that's why in the family of civilized nations we have said that their use is so abhorrent that civilized humans say that they should be banned. but they weren't. they were used extensively

on august 21. now, before i give the unclassified evidence, i want to point out that maybe there is a little opening on the occasion of the russian foreign minister today having said since our secretary of state almost in an off-handed comment a few days ago said, well, it would certainly be a game changer if he would allow the -- he, assad -- would allow the international community to come in and take control of his -- syria -- chemical weapons. the russian foreign minister today picked that up and

supposedly there is a comment by an official out of syria that says that that is worth looking into. i can't speak to the authenticity of that comment. i've heard that it was said. but whatever it is, of course assad is the decision-maker. and is ultimately going to come down to him. but in the meantime, what the united states ought to do and the congress of the united states ought to authorize what the president of the united states has requested, that the congress back him in giving him the authority to use a limited, short duration retaliation in degrading his capability, assad's capability of

utilizing these weapons in the future. if the u.s. congress will give the president that authority, it may well be the additional incentive for the ultimate decision-maker decision-maker -- president assad -- to do what the russian foreign minister has suggested. and that would be a good thing. but in the meantime, we're going to be debating this, and we are going to be put to the question: do we support the president in this time of peril? well, let's look at the facts. i think when you see the videos, clearly most every reasonable human being is going to conclude that chemical weapons were used on innocents in the damascus suburbs on the night of the

21st. so the question then of course is, well, is there a chain of custody to show that in fact they gained from the syrian army? and there is unclassified, a body of evidence that clearly shows so that, to put it in the speak of the intelligence community, we have high confidence. that means that it happened. so how did that happen? the assessment is that the syrian chemical weapons personnel who are associated with the chemical weapons part of the syrian command

were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. there were streams of data. this is all unclassified. there were streams of data of human signals and geospatial intelligence that revealed regime activities were associated with the preparations for that chemical weapons attack. syrian chemical weapons personnel, we know, were operating in the damascus suburb from august 18 all the way through august 21. and that was the suburb that was attacked. and multiple streams of

intelligence indicate that the syrian army executed the rocket and artillery attack against those suburbs in the early morning hours of august 21. we have satellite detections that corroborate those attacks from a regime-controlled neighborhood to where the attacks landed. and at the same time then, social media reports started exploding about a chemical attack in the damascus suburbs, and those social media reports started coming at 2:30 in the morning. three hospitals in damascus

received approximately 3,600 patients displaying the symptoms of a nerve agent exposure, and they received them in less than three hours on the morning of august 21. and as i have said earlier, there have been over 100 videos attributed to the attack, many of them -- and this has been distilled down into 13 videos, which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting the physical signs of nerve agent exposure. any member of the senate will have access to the classified information that shows that the

syrian opposition does not have s or the physical fabricate symptoms verified by the medical personnel. and so when you put all of this with past syrian practice, some of the small scale attacks that they had done previously, then the conclusion is obvious that the regime, the syrian regime of bashar al-assad, that regime was witting and directed the attack on august 21. so to this senator, who has had the privilege of classified information, to this senator who

has visited with president assad three times, the last time of which was six years ago, of which the two of us had a sharp exchange then over what was happening in lebanon, the fact that he was harboring hamas and hezbollah, of which, of course, he denied. to this senator, the conclusion is obvious. there is a substantial body of information that corroborates that it was the syrian government's responsibility in a chemical weapons attack on august 21. there is additional information for the senators to see.

now the question is are we going to agree to the president's request that we authorize him to attack? well, if we don't, where does that leave the president? on any kind of negotiations in the future if the president then decided to go ahead and attack, you automatically give to the opponents in these countries, especially president assad and north korea and iran, you give to them the obvious scenario that the american people are so divided they won't support the president.

and thus, if he were to decide to attack, that all the more even though he knows it's his responsibility to provide for the national security and he has sworn to provide for that national security, and yet we look so divided, at that point whatever the scenario is to the future. but look what it does in the minds of other people who want to do harm to the united states. does it give additional license to north korea if we were to do nothing? and north korea is sitting on a huge stockpile of chemical weapons, not even to speak of their nuclear weapons.

and what about iran, that we are so very concerned as they try, as they continue to energize weapons material as they march down the road perhaps to building a nuclear weapon. what kind of message does it send to iran, and just gain that out if iraq had a nuclear weapon or felt free to use chemical weapons, what that would do to the interests of the united states in that region of the world, not even to speak of our allies in the region of which there are many. so i think it is clear to this senator, i will admit that i

don't know why the president did not keep his own counsel and make the decision without saying that he wanted to come to congress, but he made that decision, and now it's up to us. hopefully there may be some validity to this report coming from the russian foreign minister, but we won't know that for a long while until, as we say, the proof's in the pudding with assad turning over control of all the chemical weapons to an international body. in the meantime, are we going to support the president of the united states? and i clearly think in the

interest of the national security of this country and our allies, that is a position that we must take. i will vote yes on the resolution. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: noting the absence of a quorum, the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: i ask that the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: the quorum call be suspended. ms. mikulski: mr. president, what is the pending business before the senate? the presiding officer: the senate is on the motion to proceed to s.j. res. 21. ms. mikulski: which is? the presiding officer: the syria resolution. ms. mikulski: thank you very much, mr. president. it is to that ominous resolution that i would like to speak. mr. president, within a few

days the senate will be called upon to vote on whether to give the president of the united states limited authority to use military action in response to the syrian president assad's use of chemical weapons against his own people. it is an enormous and grave decision. it is the most serious vote that i can take. when a united states senator is called upon to authorize america's use of military action or military might, it calls for the most sober reflection, the most due diligence, analysis of the facts and the compelling need, because it is a vote that once you vote to authorize the use of military might, you cannot take it back. it's one of the few votes that

you can't take back. we can vote on our budget this year, but there's another vote next year. you can vote to confirm a member of the cabinet, but they serve at the pleasure of the president. but once you vote to use military might or military action, it is irrevocable. so i take it very seriously, and i'm -- i want to say to the men and women of our military that we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude and i think that that should not only be with yellow ribbons but i think that we also owe them to do the due diligence to choose the wisest, most prudent course. this is what i've done as i've contemplated my vote on the syria resolution. i've gone to numerous briefings before assad used chemical weapons, and i've gone to all of the briefings since then.

i've participated as a member of the intelligence committee in a variety of meetings. i've gone to a classified house and senate briefing. i've listened carefully to the president, to the secretary of state, to the secretary of defense, and even had the opportunity to sit with the vice president of the united states in the situation room at the white house to go over this situation. and wash the options -- war the options available to the united states of america. but in digs to listen -- in addition to listening here in washington, i'm also the senator from maryland, i've listened to marylanders, whether events in meetings, going around the state, whether it's been to grocery shopping or just being out in the maryland community. i've also gotten thousands of emails and calls from maryland constituents, and i want to

thank them for their civic engagement. mr. president, they overwhelmingly oppose military action in syria. my constituents have spoken loud and clear, they don't want a war. they don't want boots on the ground. they don't want an all-in effort. they don't want to use or expend america's talent and treasure on another military expedition and they don't want war. and neither do i. yet the use of chemical weapons, a weapon of mass destruction, grim and ghoulish, mandates a response. the use of chemical weapons flies against all international law and international norms. it is an act that should have consequences, or i believe it

will surely happen again in syria, possibly in korea, possibly used by iran. since the attack, i've been waiting and hoping for worldwide reaction because if it's serious enough for the world to be aghast, then it's serious enough for them to respond. i've been waiting to hear from the 189 countries that are signatories to the chemical weapons convention. i believe if you sign a treaty or a convention, you sign up with the responsibility that comes with that, which means stop proliferation of the weapons that you signed against, stop the proliferation of chemical weapons. and also, if necessary, to take action if mandated. i've waited to hear from the arab league. i wanted to hear from the arab league, oh, yes beyond we want saddam -- excuse me, assad to

be accountable. i don't know what that means. hold him accountable. what does that mean? does it mean that if we use missiles, they will send arab men in to defend arab men and children? i haven't quite heard that. i've waited to hear from our allies, and there are hearty, reliable few that have supported us. are they going to help enforce the chemical weapons treaty? are they going to help support the moderates and the opposition? have they called for a donor conference on refugees? hello, out there? and then there's the u.n. security council. by the way, i applaud the work of the u.n. weapons inspectors and the u.n.'s work on refugees, but where is the security council? people say, "oh, we can't act unless the security council ac acts." three timesly assad and

neighbors at the -- three times the assad and the neighbors at the u.n., russia and china, have vetoed every effort to move to a political solution. vetoed three times efforts to move to a political solution. the u.n. seems paralyzed in this effort. in deciding my vote, i had to be sure that chemical weapons were used by the assad regime. mr. president, i was one of 19 senators who voted against going to war in iraq. i did vote after 9/11 to use lethal action against the taliban. but when it came to the iraq w war, as a member of the intelligence committee, i'd reviewed these briefs and i didn't believe saddam hussein had nuclear weapons so i voted "no." and i was right. but now this time is different, because i truly believe, after

extensive briefings and the evidence that has been outlined to members of the intelligence committee, i am satisfied that, indeed, chemical weapons were used in syria and i am satisfied that the assad regime gave the order to do so. there are those who say to me, well, senator barb, aren't you concerned about the risk and the retaliations if we take action? you bett bet i am. i worry about that. i worry about our own country. i worry about our own military. i worry about treasured allies like jordan, israel, turkey. but i also worry about the risk of doing nothing. because as i weighed this, that i believe that the risk and retaliatory possibilities are the same even if we don't act, because if they don't use them in retaliation against us,

there's a very good chance that if we leave it unresponded to, that they'll use them anyway. so there's no guarantee that by doing nothing, the bad guys will do nothing who have chemical weapons. and, in fact, i fear that assad, iran and north korea will be further emboldened. lastly, i had to review the president's resolution pending before the -- that came out of the foreign relations committee, modified, and the president's plan. the president's plan is very straightforward proposal, it is very strais forward - straightfa targeted, limited attack. its purpose is to deter and to degrade. to deter assad from using those weapons again and to degrade assad's capability and capacity

to use them. i also listened to the president's promise and i take him at his word that any action would not be boots on the ground, that it is not an extended air campaign. that it is not iraq or afghanistan. that we're not in it to try to do regime change. that must come from the syrian opposition themselves, and i hope others help do that. it is meant to deter the use of chemical weapons and to degrade assad's capability. i believe the president's plan is the best response to protecting u.s. security interests in the region and to show commitment to our common security interests with allies like turkey, jordan and israel. therefore, mr. president, after really great reflection and as much due diligence as i could

do, i want to announce today to my colleagues and, most of all to the people of maryland who supported me, that i will support the president's request for a targeted, limited military action against the syrian president, bashar assad's regime, in response to the horrific, grim and ghoulish use of chemical weapons. let me be clear -- i have no grand hopes or illusions about what this strike will do. i don't believe that this strike will stop syria's brutal civil yacivilwar. i don't believe the strike will stop assad from being a brutal, ruthless dictator. i do not believe that a strike will eliminate all of his chemical weapons. but i do believe that it will deter and degrade his capacity to strike again, and i do

believe that when you sign up for a convention to ban the use of chemical weapons, that the united states of america acts with its responsibility. syria is one of the toughest foreign policy issues that we have focused on. there aren't many good options, yet i believe that the president's plan is the best w way. and as of this moment, it's the only way forward. he has my support. and in today's late-breaking news, i understand russia has now said, "oh, let's put these weapons under international control." well, where were the russians during the u.n. security council, during those three other occasions? is this another tactic for del delay? is this just another tactic to enable assad to have more time to focus?

i remain skeptical. but i will leave that to the president to analyze the russians' intent and what the follow-through is on that intent. today it is not to mandate the strike. my vote does not mandate a strike. what my vote is, is to say, mr. president, you are the commander in chief. we can only have one at a time. you analyze the situation and if you think it is necessary to protect the security of the united states of america and to fulfill our responsibilities under the conventions that we've signed on chemical weapons, you have my support to act in which you think is the best way and the best interest. mr. president, i look forward to additional debate with my colleagues and also furthering this debate and coming to a closure hopefully this week. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: rise today to discuss the situation in syria and the historic choice facing this congress and america. i've been deeply cornered about the situation in syria since march of 2011 when thousands of syrians from all backgrounds peacefully protested for a change in the politics and the economy of their country. i think many of us believe that these peaceful protests would lead to the end of an autocratic assad regime, just as other despots have fallen in other parts of the arab world.

yet president bashar al-assad like his father before him responded instead with horrific violence to suppress the aspirations of his own people. with the disturbing help of russia, hezbollah, and iran, assad has managed to hang on to power to turn his country into a humanitarian nightmare. i've met my officer in washington with the russian doer to the united states on this issue -- ambassador to the united states on this issue. i've visited the refugee champs along the turkish border. i've talked about the moderate opposition in istanbul. i constitutioni discussed this h mr. ghoul and their foreign minister and met with many chicago area syrian-americans. i had hoped diplomatic and economic pressure would bring an end to the mayhem and human suffering in syria.

i know the american people feel responsibility for those overseas in need and those who are struggling to find freedom. but i also know something else about the people of my state of illinois and i believe of this country: they are weary of war. and then came the august 21 chemical attack in the suburbs of damascus in the middle of the night. at that moment an important challenge was thrown down to the international community. that's not to diminish in any way the violence that's taken place in syria over the last several years. over 100,000 have died in that violence. but when it comes to the use of chemical weapons, the world made a decision almost 100 years ago about their use, even in war. how did we reach this international consensus on this horrible weapon?

we saw firsthand what it could do. the large-scale use of chemical weapons in world war i killed many and left many maimed and disabled. many who have some memory of this war either from a history class or having spoken to someone who served there understand what it meant. these photos can't do justice to the devastation of chemical weapons and poison gas, but this is a german gas attack on the eastern front in world war i. you can see, as that gas billowed, that the victims were anyone who happened to be in its wake. this is also a photograph of british troops from world war i who were subjected to the poison gas, the chemical weapon of the day, and blinded during the battle of astaire in 1918. these photos show just a

snapshot of the use of poison gases which don't reach the level of virulence of those used today. yet maybe even more poignant are the audio recordings of the actual world war i british soldiers maintained by the b.b.c. for general rawings so that the experience would not be forgotten. let me share one excerpt of british troops struggling to cope with the effects of chemical warfare. "propped up against a wall was a dozen men, all gassed. their colors were black, green and blue, tongues hanging out and eyes staring. some were coughing up green froth from their longs. we passed many more men lying in the ditches and gur gutterways." this report goes on to vairks "my reserve sprirter fell to pieces with the continual movement and readjustment.

gas filled my eyes and filled them with matter that i could not see. i was left lying in the trenches with one o or gasked man and various beings and corpses and forced to lie, spit, and gasp the whole day in that trench. and another soldier recorded by the b.b.c. said, "the faces of our lads who say in the open changed color and present add gruesome spectacle. their faces and hands gradually assumed blue and green color thangdz the buttons on their uniforms were all discolored. many lay there with their legs drawn up clutching their coats." +srult of the horrors of world war i, in 1925 the geneva protocol prohibited the use of chemical and biological weapons in war. it was drawn up and signed in a conference held in geneva under the auspices of a league of nations, the precursor of the united nations. this happened in june of 1925.

it became a force of law in february of 1928. syria was a signatory to this agreement. let me read the opening of this protocol. it's even relevant today. "whereas the use in war of as physicaliating, poison or other gases and all analogous liquids, tiles and devices has been condemned by the opinion of the civilized world and whereas the prohibition of such use has been declared in treaties to which the majority of powers the world of parties and to the end in this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of international law binding alike the conscience and the practice of nations." mr. president, what the world was saying in 1925 was clear. these weapons, these chemical weapons would never, ever be accepted in the civilized world. this message was reaffirmed by

the convention on the prohibition of the development and productionances stockpiling of chemical weapons which went into in effect in 19897 and to which almost every country in the world aside -- almost every country -- those who have not signed: angola, egypt, north korea, south sudan, and syria. while not completely taken off the world's battlefields, notably nlt casnotably in the ce global prohibition against using chemical weapons has been largely upheld for almost a century. that is, until last month in damascus, syria. syria has one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world. at our hearing last week i asked general dempsey whether the reports which we have from the french were accurate.

they reported that the syrians now have almost 1,000 tons -- 1,000 tons -- of chemical agents and hundreds of tons of the deadly gas sarin. which has been detected in the pathological investigation of those who were victims on august 21 in damascus, syria. despite all international and warnings not to do so, the syrian government is literally a superpower when it comes to chemical weapons and has such an arsenal on such a large scale that on august 21 in the des spiration of war asheer assad unleashed these chemical weapons in his own city on his own people. these are horrible pictures of what happened as a result of that attack.

i've seen worse. one room of children stacked like cord wood. victims of these chemical weapons. we don't believe it was the first time he's used them. his father used them before him. but it's the largest scale we've ever seen of the use of chemical weapons by assad in syria. syria has crossed the line that the civilized world said must never be crossed. not only has the community of nations agreed that such weapons are never to be worked, but other regimes with weapons of mass destruction or plans for such weapons, including north korea and iran, are undoubtedly watching to see just what the world will do now. now that abou bashar assad has d chemical weapons in syria, now that the world has reported it, now that the photos are there for the world to see, now that the pathological investigations are completed, what will the world do?

ideally, there is a a place to resolve it -- the u.n. security council. but, sadly, both russia and china have said that they will veto -- veto -- not only any effort to hold assad accountab accountable; they have literally vetoed even efforts to pass resolutions condemning the use of chemical weapons without specificity in syria. russia's behavior is incredible and particularly perverse given the thousands of russian soldiers victims of chemical weapon attacks in world war i u in may 1915 alone russian soldiers on the eastern front suffered 9,000 casualties. 1,000 of them fatalities as a result of german chemical weapons. today i was in the airport in chicago and the news was flashing about an overture made

by president putin to try to put an end to this controversy. i of course ska is of course so resolve this in a verifiable way and do it with disspavmen dispa. what i understand his proposal to be is that the syrians will somehow destroy thei their crsme of chemical weapons and swear to never use them. are that would be a good outcome but it would be a difficult outcome because investigating with a third party such as the united nations, verifying where these weapons are, removing them from syria in the midst of a civil war, is particularly challenging. if there is a way to do this diplomatically, safely and to do it in a fashion where we can be certain this type of atrocity will not occur again, we

absolutely have a responsibility to pursue it. i don't understand how russia and china can be signatories to the 1925 geneva protocols on the one hand the convention on chemical weapons and then turn around and protect syria in the security council of the united nations. if there is one international agency that should be involved in any major diplomatic effort to resolve this peacefully, it should be the united nations. we should call on mr. putin to step forward with the leaders in china and say that they will work with the security council to execute any diplomatic policy that can avoid further military confrontation. until then, make no mistake ... president putin's proposal today and the activities we are seeing and hearing from syria are a direct result of president obama's leadership. he has stepped up, evening

though this is an unpopular position with some in this country, and said that we cannot i.gignore this red line createdy the world when it came to chemical weapons. it is time for others to stand up and join us, to join in stopping the advancement and use of chemical weapons once and for all. i've been listening to the syria debate and i can't tell you how many times, mr. president, i've hearkened back to the time 12 years ago when we debated entering the wore in iraq. it was -- the war in iraq. it was another one of those votes that come along in the course of a congressional career that keep you awake at night. i was serving on the intelligence committee in the senate. i'd set through hour after hour after hour of hearings about the suspected weapons of mass destruction in iraq. but it never came together in a credible way, as far as i was concerned. there was such a rush to war 12 years ago.

23 of us voted "no." 22 democrats and one republican p. and i can recall the scene. it was late at night after midnight right here in the well of the senate when three of us were left -- it was kent conrad from north dakota and, of course, from minnesota our friend and the late senator who served with so much distinction and spoke out so many times on issues of moral ethics. and we cast the vote "no" and vattewaited in the chaivment i thought about that vote so many times. think it was the right vote to vote "no." but there comes a moment in history when we have to stand up as civilized nations and say to those who are willing to ignore the rules and to break the rules that a line cannot be crossed. i hope that we can get that

done, not just in the memory of senator wellstone and senator conrad, but in the memory of so many who have served heard and faces these challenges in the past. i hope that we can find a diplomatic solution which will avoid any military use, but i know the reason we have reached this point in diplomacy with this putin overture has more to do with the president determined to stand up for a matter of principle than almost anything else. we've got to continue to make it clear that we find it unacceptable to use these chemical weapons. we paid a bitter price for the war in iraq when we were misled as to weapons of mass destruction as a nation. i've seen the evidence in briefings here of this deadly attack in damascus. i think the evidence is overwhelming and convincing. i think at this point many

americans are reluctant to even consider the use of military force. so we sat down and drew up a resolution in the senate foreign relations committee last week. strict limitations within this resolution about the president's authority and power. 60 days he has to execute a military strategy if nothing else intervenes. he can extend it 30 days but even congress can object to that if it wishes. he can use military weapons but only for the purposes specified. no troops on the ground. no troops in combat operations. as senator mccain said yesterday, that will be part of the law. the president has already said that's his standard as well. so for those who are worried about mission creep and where this might lead us, if god forbid we are faced with that possibility, this resolution strictly limits what the president can do. mr. president, it was about eight days ago when i got a

phone call at my home in springfield late on a sunday night, and a phone call i'll never forget from the president himself. and we talked for about half an hour. we talked about a lot of things because we go back a long way. and he talked to me about his thought process and what he's taking under consideration in leading, trying to lead the world in this response to chemical weapons. i was one of the early supporters of this president. i believe in him. i believe in his values. i believe he has been honest with me and with the american people about the situation we face, what we face. i know the options are not good. they never are in these circumstances. but i also know that if we turn our backs on this situation, there will be some dictator in iran or north korea who will be emboldened to do even more, to

use perhaps not just chemical weapons but even nuclear weapons. there comes a point when we have to take a stand. and i understand as people that i represent across illinois have said to me so many times in the last week, why is it always the united states? why is it that we have to be involved in this so many times? why do we have to be the policeman to the world? there's a basic answer there. i'd like to believe that we have values that the rest of the world looks up to. we've stumbled in our own history. we'll continue to. but we continue to fight for those basic values all around the world. and secondly, if you're in trouble in your country somewhere in the world and you've got one call to make, one 911 call, you pray to god the united states will answer because we have the best military in the world. we do, and we respond to challenges around the world

throughout history. and seldom do we leave a residual power base behind. we go in, we do the job, we come home. that's something we can't natio. it's an awesome responsibility. i think the president is doing the right thing. i think his appeal to the leaders around the world, his appeal to the american people is consistent with our values as a nation. the president doesn't come quickly to war. he's a person that understands as i do the heavy price that has to be paid. and he understands there are moments when a leader, a commander in chief, a person with the responsibility of protecting his nation in a dangerous world has to step up and lead. if the united states did not take that upon this leadership role, i doubt anyone else would have. i take very seriously the president's promise that he won't be putting boots on the ground in syria. mr. president, i've been to too

many funerals, visited too many disabled veterans to ever want to see us do that again except when it's absolutely necessary for america's survival. i think what we are doing this week in the senate is a step in the right direction, and i believe it's a step that can move us towards a safer world. if we can find because of the president's leadership a diplomatic response here that avoids further military conflict but keeps us safe from these deadly chemical weapons, we should pursue it. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: are we in a quorum

call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. murphy: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with and i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection the quorum call is dispensed with and the senator is recognized as if in morning business. mr. murphy: thank you very much, mr. president. almost all of this week on the floor of the senate will be dedicated to one of the most serious, if not the most serious matters that this body ever considers, that of war and peace, the question of whether or not we engage american military assets in conflicts across the globe. and i'm sure i'll be back down here later this week to speak on that weighty matter, and i appreciate the senator from illinois', i think, very passionate speech on this subject. but, mr. president, almost every week over the last several months when the senate has been in session, i've come down to the floor to talk about another

subject of life-and-death consequence. that is the growing number of individuals across this country who have been killed by guns. and though we are going to debate life and death here this week as we try to figure out what the course of american intervention may or may not be in a place on the other side of the earth in which far too many people, far too many innocent people, little babies and adults alike, are being killed, we can't go weeks without also debating what we're doing here to make sure that american citizens, babies and teenagers and adults right here in the united states of america are being killed. what are we doing to prevent that? so i brought this poster down or a variant of it a couple times a month every single month since i think about april of this year, and the number is a pretty

simple number. it represents the number of people in the united states who have been killed by guns since december 14. now as we get farther away from that date, maybe people forget what it is, but in connecticut we will never ever forget what that date means. december 14 was the date in which 20 little six- and seven-year-old boys and girls were killed inside sandy hook elementary school along with six teachers and professionals that protected them along with the gunman and his mother. 28 people in all were killed that day. and it has, frankly, lit a spark under the american conscienceness about this issue which has frankly been lingering for far too long. 28 people died in newtown that day on december 14, but every day across this country on average 30 people die due to homicides from guns.

and so i'm back here today to try to tell the stories of just a hand full of the 7,907 people that have been killed at the hands of gun violence since december 14. i think when i started back in april, this number was somewhere around 4,000. it has marched upwards, almost doubled since then. this has been a really bad summer in connecticut tpr-rbgs for instance, in -- connecticut. in places like hartford and new haven and bridgeport we thought we were making progress in the number of homicides by guns this summer. unfortunately we saw far too many. people like davonte jackson, 18 years old killed on august 15 of this year in new haven. he was 18 years old and he was killed in drive-by shooting while simply standing on a sidewalk just after 8:00 on the evening of august 15.

a friend of davonte says i don't understand why somebody would do this to him. he's real good. i never knew he had problems with anybody, because he was always getting along with everybody. other friends said he wasn't a bad kid. he was just in the wrong spot at the wrong time. everybody should know stop the violence. put the guns down. a few days later in hartford, at the same nightclub in two separate incidents, two young men, miguel delgado, 21 and brian sinpke, 19, two different disputes, two different incidents and both these boys were killed. brian was 19 years old. he had graduated from manchester high school. he attended manchester community college. he worked at shop rite in order to make enough money to go to community college. he wanted to start his own

business. he was a kid who wanted to do something great with his life. he tweeted before he was heading out that night, "just another summer night out." unfortunately in places like hartford and new haven and bridgeport and baltimore and chicago and los angeles, this is just another summer night out. too many people being killed simply as a result of common disputes, this time happening in a nightclub in hartford. domestic violence, as we know, often unfortunately leads to tragic homicidal incidents. janice lesko from coffin try, connecticut -- from coventry, connecticut died from a gunshot wound to the chest. her husband who shot her then committed suicide. her husband had a well-documented, a decade-long history of threats and abuse.

mrs. lesko was a mother and a grandmother. she lived in coventry for most of her life. luckily, i have an agreement that people who have domestic violence -- who are guilty of domestic violence shouldn't get their hands on a gun, but they can if they walk into a gun shop -- if they walk into a gun show or if they buy their gun on the internet. and we can't simply make a decision here that if you buy a gun online or you buy your gun at a gun show you should be stopped from doing so if you have a history of domestic violence. and i frankly was just struck by this one newspaper article describing one night in new haven. this is even earlier, on august 11, 2013. it starts by talking about

torrense dockens, celebrating his birthday in a new haven nightclub when he was shot and killed at about 1:30 on august 11. the article goes on and casually says later that day new haven police responded to more gun violence. a local rap rapper was putting up sheets of an upcoming concert coming up in town and suffered a single gunshot wound to his neck. davon goodman, 18 years old was shot in the thigh. police were called to an area on dixwell avenue to find out germane adams, 41, received a gunshot wound to his face. those last three people miraculously survived but you can see how casual gun violence can be on a summer sunday in new haven, connecticut. one young man died as a consequence of a dispute at a nightclub and three other people luckily survived those wounds who were killed later in the

day. every single day in this country in the united states of america 30 people are dying due to gun violence. almost 8,000 people have died since the tragedy in sandy hook, and this body has done nothing to stop it. it is commonsense legislation before this senate which says if you have a criminal history you shouldn't be able to buy a gun no matter where you buy it. at a gun show, online. we've had bipartisan legislation on the floor saying you know what? it should be a crime to buy a whole mess load of guns from a gun store and then go out and intentionally sell them to criminals. we can't get that passed either. we even vied to say let's just beef up our mental health system, make sure that people who have a serious mental illness get the treatment they need so that they don't resort to violence, the very few who do. thag will that was part of the bill that we couldn't get

passed. and so, mr. president, i'm going to continue to come down to the floor to give voices to these victims, to talk about the real people, the stories behind the doddsens of people that are killed every day by guns in this country, the 8,000 people who have been killed since sandy hook. we're going to make a really, really important decision this week about whether or not we're going to commit military assets to the middle east. and maybe that debate will stretch into next week and the week after. but we shouldn't forget that while people are dying overseas, people are dying due to gun violence right here in the united states. and before it's too late, before another 8,000 people die from guns in this country, we should do something about it. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: prepares? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. the senate is in a quorum call.

mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i come to the floor at this time to talk about the urgent issue before the senate and before the country. we come to this chamber, as we have many times before, to make one of the most difficult decisions we are tasked to make, which is the authorization of the use of american military power, this time in syria, to respond to the horrific attack, including the use of chemical weapons of august 21 that took the lives of over 1,429 syrians, including at least 426 childrens. childrens -- 426 children. the world is watching. and the world is watching to see what we do in this chamber in response to the threat the world is facing from those who cross the line of human decency and use chemical weapons against

anyone anywhere in the world. now, the images of that august 21 attack are sickening and, in my view, the world cannot ignore the inhumanity and horror of what bashar al-assad did. now, as i've said many times before, as a member of congress, i do not take the responsibility to authorize military force lightly or make such decisions easily. i voted against the war in iraq when every public poll said it was popular to vote for the war. i have been a strong advocate of a more robust drawdown in afghanistan. but today i urge my colleagues to support this tightly crafted, clearly focused resolution to give the president authorization to use military force in the face of this horrific crime

against humanity. now, yes, there are clearly risks to any actions we authorize, but the consequences of inaction, the consequences of standing down from fully upholding the norms of international behavior are greater and graver still. future humanitarian disaster in syria, regional instability, loss of american credibility around the world and an embolden themboldened north korea and ir. this vote will be one of the most difficult any of us will be asked to america, but the american people expect us to make those hard decisions and to take hard votes. they expect us to put aside political differences and personal ideologies. to forget partisanship and preconceptions. to even not necessarily follow

where the wind is blowing. this is a moment i believe for profiles in courage, a moment for each of us to do what we know is right based on what we know is the best interests of the united states, regardless of what the political pundits will say. to be clear, the authorization senator corker and i are introducing -- and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be listed as a sponsor and senator corker be listed as the cosponsor of the resolution. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: the authorization we are introducing is for focused action with a clear understanding that american troops will not -- will not -- be on the ground in combat. we've worked closely together to put politics aside, weigh the facts, search or consciences and the committee to find something we believe is in the national

security interest of the american people. i've said before and will say again, this is not a declaration of war but a declaration of our values. and i want to thank senator corker, the rank member of the - the ranking member of the senate foreign relations committee, who's been an important member to tailor the importance of this resolution so that it reflects the committee, the interests of the american people and at the same time gives the president the authority he needs to sponld ttorespond so serious use of chemical weapons against its own people. now, what do we know? because i see, as i was back home in new jersey listening to citizens who came up to me concerned, and i think it's important to say, what do we know? what we know is clear, notwithstanding assad's interviews and his denials. according to the declassified intelligence assessment, we know with high confidence that the syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the damascus suburbs on august the

21st. we know that the buck stops with assad. his interview denials aside. we know that he controls the regime's stockpiles of chemical agents, including mustard, sarin, and v.x. gas, and has thousands of munitions capable of delivering them, again under his control. it is inconceivable and committee fodefiesall logic thaw about the preparations and deployment of these horrific weapons. we know that personnel involved in this program are carefully vetted to ensure loyalty to the regime and the security of the program. we know that chemical weapons personnel from the scientific research center which is seaboard national to the ministry of defense, were operating in the damascus suburbs from august, the 18th until early the morning of wednesday, august 21

near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons including sarin. and human intelligence as well as anything sig natural and geo spatial intelligence have shown germany activity in the preparation of chemicals prior to the attack including the distribution and use of gas masks. and we also know that where the -- in fact, the attacks took place from was from those areas that the regime under assad controlled under those suburbs of the damascus that rebels were fighting. and we know that the rebels do not have the where with alto have the type of altillry that ultimately delivered these chemical weapons, nor do they have the access to these chemical weapons. now, some may still in the face of all of those facts be

skeptical about assad's involvement, but clearly, the buck stops with assad when it comes to the use of these weapons. now, some may also be skeptical that we have not done enough to allow diplomacy to work, but the fact is we have tried diplomacy. we have gone to the united nations on many occasions, and it has has only bought assad more time. notwithstanding russia's belated offer today to take action -- which, by the way, may only be on the table specifically, specifically because of the threat of the use of force -- let's not forget it has been their intransigence that brought to us this point in the first place. the fact is on august 28, a week after the attack, russia blocked a united nations security council resolution that called -- quote -- "for all

necessary measures to be taken" and simply called for any statement state that used chemical weapons to be held accountable. the russians could not even accept a resolution that simply said that any state that uses chemical weapons should be held accountable. on the day of the attack, august 21, russia blocked a security council press statement, a simple press statement, expressing concern that chemical weapons might have been used. they couldn't support an expression of concern. on august 6, russia blocked another press statement welcoming the news that a u.n. investigations team would investigate these sites in calling for their full unfettered access to those sites. russia has also vetoed a security council resolution, enshrining the june 30 geneva communique, vetoed calling an

end to violence the syria, vetoed a draft resolution that would have condemned human rights violations. they blocked a press statement calling for humanitarian access to the besieged city of holmes and one calling for syrian authorities to provide the united nations with humanitarian access. all of these actions that simply would have put the u.n. in a position to observe and possibly to help, they blocked. and over the course of the conflict in syria, the united states government, specifically the state state department, has met consistently with its close allies and partners as well as with syria's neighbors to help prepare the region to detect, prevent, and respond to the potential use or proliferation of chemical weapons. i think as ambassador power

acknowledged in her remarks at the center for american progress on september 6, the united states has regularly engaged with the russians and the iranians, even, to attempt to get them to use their influence to stop the assad regime from using chemical weapons. and that very same day, on september 6, the united states and ten other countries issued a joint statement condemning the assad regime's use of chemical weapons. us a tailia, canadian, france, italy, japan, the republic of korea, spain, turkey and great britain, since then 14 other nations have also signed on to that a statement, albania, croatia, estonia, germany, honduras, kosovo, lithuania, romania and the united arab emirates. it's only the threat by the president and this resolution that would drive both russia and syria to the possibility of a

negotiating table. the facts are clear, we have tried diplomacy. let us understand that this action is not a choice of force or diplomacy. it's about both. it's about enforcing international norms that will at the end of the day leverage necessary u.n. action and help bring about a political solution. for those who want to see u.n. security council action, those who want to push syria to sign a chemical weapons agreement and give up their weapons, this resolution is the best path to getting there. let me finally say to my colleagues who believe that the authorization of the use of military force will be nothing more than -- i've heard this phrase several times -- than a pinprick. this resolution will have clear and verifiable consequences. it will help keep these weapons in check, degrade assad's ability to displie deploy them, and i believe prevent the proliferation of chemical weapons and their use by others

in the world. the resolution will have clear consequences, but at the same time it's also not over-ended. it appropriately narrows the scope, duration, and breadth of the authority granted to meet congressional concerns and the concerns of the american people. it is tightly tailored to give the president necessary and appropriate authority to use military force to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction in syria, protect the national security interests of the united states and our allies and partners, and degrade syria's capacity to use the weapons in the future. it has the requirement for determination that the use of military force is necessary, that appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to prevent the deployment and use of chemical weapons by syria have been used and that the united states has both a specific military plan to achieve the goal of responding to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the syrian government and that

the use of military force is consistent with broader goals of u.s. strategy towards syria including achieving a negotiated settlement to the conflict. and a limitation that specify that this the resolution does not -- does not -- authorize the use of united states armed forces on the ground in syria for the purposes of combat operations, assuring there will be no boots on the ground. and that authorization would end after 60 days with the president having the ability to request and certify for another 30 days and congress having an opportunity if it disagreed to pass a resolution of disapproval. it provides for an integrated united states government strategy for syria including a comprehensive review of current and planned u.s. diplomatic, political, economic policy toward syria and a status report to the congress. now, let me say in conclusion history has taught us harsh lessons when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. the images we've seen of

children lying on the floor on august 21 were not the first images the world has ever seen of ther who horrors of combhal attacks. we saw them nearly a hundred years ago in world war i. if we to not learn from and live by the lessons of the pathways, if we fail the tests of history we're doomed to repeat it. if we allow the use and proliferation of chemical weapons despite the world's horror at the gruesome use of those used at the beginning of the last century we risk the same horrors in this century. let's not fail the test of history. let us say to the world we cannot allow anyone to use chemical weapons again, that we can never allow such weapons to fall in the hands of stateless actors and terrorists who would unleash them against america and american interests around the world. for all of those reasons and i want to make sure that the ranking member gets time, i'll ask i ask unanimous consent that my fill ful statement be entered into the record. i believe this is in the national security interests of the united states and i

passionately urge my colleagues to think about the consequences of inaction. with that i'll be happy to yield to the ranking member. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator's full statement will be put in the record and the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. corker: mr. president, i'd like to thank the chairman for his comments, for his historical analysis of what has occurred, and his comments regarding our ability to work together on this. i do want to reiterate a point that the chairman made partially through his comments. i don't think any of us know at this time whether the offers today that have been made there russia and the responses given from syria, i don't think we have any idea whether there's credibility at present. what i do know is there would be absolutely zero conversation about that had our committee not passed an authorization out on a 10-7-volt and if we were not taking this up this week. i want to commend the chairman

for his leadership on this issue. i've enjoyed working with him on this issue. i've enjoyed working with him on all the issues relative to syria, and all the other things that we've done in a bipartisan way and i think it's been the tradition, i know it's the tradition of this body to when it comes to issues beyond our shores, to set aside partisanship as was mentioned a moment ago, and do things that are in the best interest of our nation. there's nothing more important that each member of this body will take up than the authorization for the use of military force, and i sense that the other day in our committee, i've sensed with those i talked to since, each member is looking at this with a sense of humility and soberness and i really believe it's up to each member to make this decision. i will say that the issues of syria are something that i'm familiar with, i've traveled to

the region, as i know the chairman and many others have, i've traveled three times this year, wrote an op-ed in "the new york times" in april regarding what our response to syria should be. our committee, thankfully, passed out on a 15-3 vote on may 21 with the chairman's leadership the syria transition support act, and this was to support the vetted, moderate opposition and require the administration to develop a comprehensive strategy. i know that members of this body know that i support this authorization, i helped write it with the chairman, i am very comfortable with my position in supporting this and believe that what we've done with this authorization we've done in the right and correct way. i will say that i've been very dismayed at the administration's lack of response after stating publicly that they were going to support the vetted moderate

opposition and -- in certain ways, i've been very frustrated at the response and the lack of support in that way. i was just in the area as i mentioned three weeks ago, i visited the same refugee camps in turkey on the syrian board er and in jordan on the syrian border. i saw the same frees i saw -- grease i -- refugees, and i'm, and i know we have urged out of our committee that we have a much more comprehensive strategy. i wish that bill had come to the floor, i wish the senate had taken action but candidly also am dismayed this administration has not taken action to do something in a more comprehensive way. no question, the introduction of chemical weapons has changed the dynamic tremendously. i think the chairman was very are a articulate in explaining why this is important. i want to say to everybody in

this body to me an equally important issue for our nation is the credibility of the united states of america. i believe that our president whether you support him or not, whether you like him or not, i believe the president spoke for our nation when he established a red line some months ago regarding the use of chemical weapons. and i believe that it is very important for our nation's credibility in the region and in the world that we have an appropriate response when we have a dictator like assad take the actions that he has taken against international norms, the way that he has but especially when the commander in chief of our nation has spoken the way that he has about this issue. so to me this is twofold, certainly is about the international norms that have been spoken to eloquently by many, but to me it's also an issue of this nation's credibility, of the response as people are looking on to what

we're going to do, and that's why i support this authorization. i do want to go back over a couple of points that the chairman referred to relative to the substance of the authorization. i think most people know the white house sent over an authorization that to me was very broad. it did not define what we were going to do in a specific way, i know the chairman just talked about the fact that this authorization is tailored, it's specific, and let me just go over again what specifically this authorization does. its specific purpose is only to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction, to dissuade future pews iews, degrade ability and prevent transfer. no boots on the ground for combat operations. i know there have been discussions about that in our committee. very emphatically this authorization eliminates and

keeps any boots on the ground for combat operations from occurring. this has a time limit of 60 days with a 30-day extension which congress can disapprove. it is geographically limited to syria only, which the original authorization was not. it's against legitimate military targets only which, again, the original authorization was not. and there are a series of determinations that the president has to make prior to taking action with this authorization, including that it's in the core national interests of the u.s. and that he has a military plan to achieve the objectives. in addition, this authorization requires a comprehensive strategy for a negotiated end to this conflict. i want to refer to something else the chairman mentioned, and that is the type of activity, i know there's been numbers of editorial comments in papers and publications all around the country referring to

this as a pin prick. there have been concerns by members of this body as to the duration of this effort and how long it will be. i've had the privilege and because of the position that i serve on the foreign relations committee to be involved in multiple, multiple, multiple phone calls, personal meetings, one last night that lasted at great lefng ledge with the president and the vice president, and i want to say to every person in this body i have no belief whatsoever that if military action is tampa bay it's going to be a pinprick. none. the american military has incredible ability to deal with issues in a forceful way but also do so in a very short time frame. i really do believe based on the many meetings that we've had both with military and civilian leadership, i really do believe that to characterize what's proposed as a pinprick or to

characterize as what it's as inserting ourselves into a long-term civil war, i think both of those characterizations are wrong. obviously, one of the dilemmas that people here deal with is that we write policy, and then it's up to the administration to carry that out, and no question, none of us will be involved in the direct carrying out, but it is my firm belief that there's not a threat of thinking by the administration that what they are considering is a pinprick, and on the other hand, i have not a thread of thought that they're also considering doing something that is going to involve us in a long-term civil war. obviously, conflicts like this are complex. in closing, let me say this. each senator has to make their own decision. this is one of those things where lobbying is not something that's going to make senators' minds up. i think each senator has to, in

their own mind and heart, make their own mind up. what i can say is that we're going to have an open process. i know we've talked about the process going forward. i believe that we will have -- i hope that senators will keep their amendments germane. i hope we have a sober debate about an issue that is the most important type of decision that any senator will make. it's important -- i'm thrilled, by the way, that the president decided to come to congress for an authorization. i know a lot of people have made lots of comments regarding that. candidly, i am glad the president has come to us for this debate, and it is my hope that the senate, after hearing the facts and after having a thoughtful debate, will approval this authorization for the use of military force. i couldn't agree more with the chairman, that if people want to see a diplomatic solution, which is the only way we're going to end this conflict.

i do not think this conflict ends militarily. i believe that we have learned a lot from the last two episodes that we have been through, and i believe that it's important for us, though, to have this authorization because i believe it is the only thing at this point, the fact that we've passed it out of committee, the fact that it's on the floor that might possibly lead to a diplomatic settlement. i also believe, though, that it's time for the president to lead. i know there have been a lot of statements over the last week, and the president has had multiple audiences to which to speak, and i understand that, and i understand that reports out of these meetings can come out in many ways not to be accurate. i know the president is coming to the hill tomorrow. i know he will be making a major speech to the united states, the citizens of our country, tonight -- tomorrow night. i know that many of them have lives that where they get up -- all of them, most of them get up

in the mornings, go to work, half their families, and they haven't had the opportunity to spend as much time on these issues, and that's why we're elected to do this. but i will say this -- it is very important for the president of the united states to come to congress and the president of the united states to make his case to the american people. he is asking for this authorization. i believe that it is important for us to give him this authorization, and i want to thank again the chairman for working with us to make sure that we have narrowed this authorization in such a way that i think it meets the test, and what the american people and what all of us want to see happen, but i really do believe that now it's up to the president over the next several days and this week to make his case to the american people as to why the senate, the united states senate, should give him this authorization for the use of military force, which i hope we will do. mr. president, i thank you for

the time, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, the judiciary, valerie e. caproni of the district of columbia to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york. vernon s. broderick of new york to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that all time during this debate on the -- on the executive calendar be equally divided on both sides and that any quorum call that is called be equally divided as well in terms of charging the time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, in view of the fact that i don't see any members at this point, i observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: today i rise to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support valerie cay prone knee for u.s. district judge for new york's southern district. i know her to be a woman with impeccable credentials, incredible intellect and the kind of fair-minded judgment we need on the federal befnlg. ms. caproni today serves as vice president and general counsel for north flop grumman corporation where she leads all aspects of litigation. ms. caproni joined north grope grumman from her former position at the f.b.i., a position that director robert mueller personally asked her to serve in in the wake of the attacks of 9/11. she knows full well the task at hand forbe the f.b.i. is never easy, from protecting america from terror and other attacks

balanced with defending our civil liberties and civil rights. but as she put it, "they always strive to do the right thing and to maintain as a lodestar fieldy to the constitution and the rule of law." that's what ms. caproni believes. she also served in the s.e.c. where she enforced regulatory programs in the nine-state pacific region. she and her staff strengthened cooperation between the s.e.c. and the u.s. attorney's office to crack down on financial fraud. ms. caproni also served as chief of the criminal division for the u.s. attorney's office for the eastern district of new york and in private practice at several top firms. through her breadth of experience, her talent, her intellect, and her strong characteristic, i know ms. caproni would be an outstanding jurist. i strongly believe this country needs more women like her serve

in the federal judiciary, an institution that i believe needs more exceptional women. i have no doubt that having ms. capronu serve in the federal judiciary will bring us choicer to achieving that goal of a federal judiciary that reflects our nation. i was honored to recommend her for this position and i urge all my colleagues to vote in support of her confirmation. i also urge my colleagues to vote in favor of another outstanding new yorker, vernon broderick, also to be a u.s. district judge for the southern district of new york. mr. broderick served as an assistant u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york where he helped protect new yorkers by prosecuting cases involving organized crime, international narcotics trafficking and violent crimes. i urge the senate to vote in full support of mr. broderick's nomination. thank you, mr. president. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: and yield back the time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the question is on the caproni nomination. mr. cardin: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 73, the

nays are 24. the nomination is confirmed. the question now occurs on the broderick nomination. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session. the senate will come to order. the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask now unanimous consent we proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed the speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: for the information of

all senators --. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. reid: mr. president, tomorrow i've spoken to the republican leader, --. a senator: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. reid: mr. president, tomorrow the president is going to brief the democratic caucus and the republican caucus separately. he's going to address the nation tomorrow night. as we all know, the international discussions continue relative to the matter in syria. normally, what i would do in a situation like this is file cloture today. but i don't think that's to our benefit. i don't think we need to see how fast we can do this. we have to see how well we can do this matter. i'm not going to file cloture this evening on the motion to proceed to the syria resolution. i've spoken to the republican

leader, i've talked to virtually all my democratic senators and we have enough votes to get cloture but i don't think this is a -- counting numbers thing tonight. i think what we need to do is make sure that the president has the opportunity to speak to all 100 senators and all 300 million american people before we do this. as i've said before, when we get on this we're going to have this in a manner that is dignified and move forward in a way that's expeditious but yet one that's thorough. so i've discussed this with the president and other people in the administration. i repeat i want to make sure the president has fall ful the country to make his case to the senate and the american people before voting on this matter. as always i'll continue to discuss this with senator mcconnell, and we'll see if we can reach some kind of agreement to move forward on

this without cloture. if that doesn't work out, i will file cloture when appropriate. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. the senate will be in order. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 15 minutes -- 10 minutes and 15 minutes and after i conclude my remarks, senator inhofe of oklahoma, senator casey of pennsylvania will be recognized.

the presiding officer: is there any objections? without objection. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you. most of us were in our states over labor day. i come to the floor generally a few days after labor day when we return back to washington and talk about the importance of labor day and what it means to working americans, what it's meant to our country. what it's meant to building a strong middle class. i'd like to read a letter sent to me by bill ross, an ohio business leader. mr. ross tells his story like this, he writes i grew up in a first-generation immigrant family in a small ohio town. my father obtained only an eighth grade education, not uncommon for his generation, he worked hardz in an industrial job. my mother worked at home to care for our family of five children. when able to do so she went to work outside the household, too. we rented a home for $25 a

month, ate nutritious homes and walked to school with clean clothes each day. all five children went to college, and pursued rewarding professional careers in law, education, and business. how did this happen? mr. ross writes because first and foremost my father had a job with a living wage and health care for his family that his union protected. because we had access to good quality public education, because we had access to affordable state yoofortsd and student loan programs that we could later afford to repay because blue collar working people had a chance. i hope we can restore that in america again. bill ross' story is seech very much like my wife connie's story. bill ross born in ashtabula a bit before my wife, my wife born in ashtabula. his mother went to work when she could, my wife's father carried

a utility worker's union card for more than 30 years in ashtabula, ohio. she when her mother was a home care worker and worked when she could after the children were a little older. my wife, as did bill ross, was able to go to school with minimal debt. she grawnted from kent state university in the 1970's with not much more than 12 hoontdz in student debt -- $1,200 in student debt. the presiding officer comes from a state much like mine. he understands the importance of carrying a union card and getting a living wage in giving the people the kind of the country that people in this country deserve. for generations hardworking americans left their homes every morning, some at night to earn an honest living. they bent swollen knees to put on work boots to provide for loved ones. they put up with clalloused

hands. middle-class americans, people struggling to enter the middle class labor day to ensure children had an adequate education to thrive. we know steelworkers and nursers and plumbers are not always treated with the dignity that they deserve, especially far too often from our elected officials. american history is a history of struggle for working people, fighting for representation and fair wages, for access to good-paying jobs, for the dignity every human being deserves. it's about fighting for democracy and civil rights, as we were reminded a few dice daisuke ago when we marked the anniversary of the march in washington. more than a centurying could when john patterson green an ohioan and james hendertonson kyl introduced a bill to establish labor day as a state holiday, they were focused on

the rights of all americans who work hard and play by the rules. since then we've seen how the middle class grew when we ensure that hard work is rewarded with fair pay and decent benefits. 75 years ago president roosevelt signed the fair labor standards act which are ensured americans would receive a wage, reasonable work hours and an end to child labor. one of the authors of that bill, hugo black, sat at this specific desk in the united states senate supporting social security, spoashting minimum wage, supporting paying for overtime. that legislation he introduced initially in 1932. president roosevelt led us to decades of prosperity by ensuring that hard work is met with fair wages and decent working conditions. a minimum wage represented lift millions of millions of americans from poverty. today workers face new challenges. while corporate executives and weetd banks are earning record profits, too many families in

ohio and indiana and oklahoma and across the country are struggling. some politicians abuse the recession and the budget crisis it created as ground for attacking workers' rights. across the country, we've seen vicious attacks on workers' rights. we've seen it in north carolina, we saw it last near in indiana, we saw it last year year in michigan, seeing it in ohio. ohio passed one of the worst attacks on collective bargaining rights in ohio's history, trying to convince people public employees caused the financial crisis, not wall street. workers fought back, shattering a record for signatures needed to establish a ballot initiative in energizing two million voters who came out to overturn that wrong-headed law. today because of the unity of not just labor union members but the huge majority of voters in ohio, because of that, police officers, firefighters, sanitation workers, teachers and other public sector workers continue to have the right to bargain and work with management through collective bargaining to

ensure safety and fairness on the job. in akron, ohio, u.a.w. workers provide high quality work allowing them to be competitive with workers in mexico preventing operations from being outsourced and helping to attract new investment in ohio. in toledo in youngstown and cleveland and beyond, union auto workers helped bring back the auto industry. they're building the cars of the fiech that people want to drive. i met with business owners across ohio over this august and month before month before month before that in my seven years in the senate. ohio workers who want to pay their workers a fair wage and have joined in efforts to raise the minimum wage. they knee increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour will increase gross domestic product by nearly $33 billion over the three years as workers spend their raises. this activity would generate 140,000 new jobs over the course of three years.

the american people -- it's no surprise that the american public is anxious about our place in increasingly multipolar, complicated dynamic economy. people know that cafta and nafta and permanent trade relations when they were passed, plants were closed, we lost 5 million good paying manufacturing jobs. never in history has company after company after company implemented a business plan where you close down production in steubenville or toledo or dayton, ohio, move overseas to woohon shiahano, china, and sell that product back to the united states. that business plan led us to this. in 1977, manufacturing was 20% of our g.d.p. financial services represented significantly less. that flipped by 2010, where manufacturing is now only about 11% of g.d.p. between 2000-2010, because of

wrongheaded trade agreements, because of tax policy that has given incentives to move offshore, our country lost 5 million manufacturing jobs, 60,000 plants closed down. since 2010, we've seen manufacturing jobs grow by more than 500,000. that's not good enough. we've got to enact an agenda that includes the best-trained workers, the most developed and sophisticated infrastructure, the most robust manufacturing base, the strongest defense against currency manipulation. until every american worker is able to rise out of poverty, we still have work to do. labor day celebrated last week shouldn't simply mark the end of summer. it should mark the beginning of a renewed commitment to fighting for american workers, to fighting for american business, and to strengthen our middle class. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: first of all, let me thank my friend, the distinguished senator, for including me in his unanimous consent request.

i -- i am just briefly going to talk about an amendment. we all understand that the issue's going to come before this body to send activity int into -- into syria, and i'm very much opposed to any kind of force in syria. if it happens, we want to be sure that there's some protection in there, so i have an amendment that even if my amendment passes, i will still oppose the effort of this president to send activity into syria and i believe which would precipitate a war. so my amendment's very simple. if the president takes military action against syria, sequestration of our armed forces would be delayed for one year. now, we're talking about the fiscal year where it would take another $52 billion out of our -- of our military. what assad has done and continues to do is reprehensible but the united states can't afford another war given the current state of our military. the threats from syria and the

middle east are not emerging threats. these threats have been around for decades. we knew that they were there. there's nothing new about them. yet the readiness capabilities of our military continue to be decimated by drastic budget cuts. the 16 air force combat flying squadrons have been grounded. we've finally after three months put them back in the air again. and right now we know it costs more to get them back in a state of readiness than the money that was saved by grounding them for three months. our naval fleet has been reduced to historically low levels and the end strength of our ground forces have been cut by more than 100,000 personnel and hundreds of thousands of d.o.d. civilian employees have been furloughed. you know, just in my state of oklahoma, in one of my installations, 14,000 civilian employees have been furloughed. well, we can't have it both ways. continue to cut the funding of our military while still expecting it to meet our national security requirements as military readiness and capabilities decline.

we accept greater risk. and as i've always said, risky k equals lives. every time we have a hearing, we have our combatant commanders come in and talk about the -- the risk. risk means lives. as i've always said, risk equals lives, and allowing these cuts to continuing while proposing positive send our forces into harm's way is immoral and reprehensible. over the last week, i've heard from a lot of the president and the administration about how any action in -- in syria will be limited, and there's -- i suggest there's no such thing as limited war. once we decide to strike, we can't predict where it will end up or how the situation might escalate. let's not forget we have troops currently on the ground in jordan and in turkey, marines guarding our embassies, sailors and airmen stationed around the region. we've already heard that iran is ordering its terrorist proxies to retaliate against the -- by

attacking united states interests in the region, including our embassy in iraq. the state department has ordered nonessential personnel to evacuate our embassy in lebanon, and the threats of our forces are real. you know, i'd like to read for my colleagues excerpts from a letter that was written by two ladies, rebecca sanderlin and mommy blake. now, these are spouses of two of our servicemen. they're responding much more eloquently than i could ever hope to, to the immense hardships of our military enduring under the sequestration due to the misguided belief that a military strike on syria can be t done in isolation, that it won't affect our troops and their families. i'm going to ask that the entire letter be made a part of the record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: and i'd like to quote, and i ask my colleagues to listen to the quote. these are the two ladies who are spouses of -- of servicemen. they said -- quote -- "there's

no such thing as a personless war. our military cannot afford for americans to forget that wars and battles and military strawx by fought by troops. the troops are people and that those people have families. and our military communities this summer, we couldn't even afford to pay federal employees for a five-day work week. military families get -- can't get doctors' appointments and can't get counseling services needed to grapple with the problems that we already have, problems largely created by almost 12 years of war. today, clinic hours are being slashed along with pretty much every other service military families needs. walking around our communities lately, it doesn't look like we can afford much of anything and certainly not a whole new war." i'm still quoting now from these -- these wives of our military men. "and maybe someday we will be able to fight whole wars without using a single human, but today, in 2013, we can't have a

surgical strike without someone saying where to drop the bombs or where to aim those missiles. and those planes that drop the bombs, the destroyers that carry the missiles, they have pilots, they have captains and crews. all humans, even the unmanned drones have human pilots. and the psychological wear and tear on them is staggering. planes take off from airfields in foreign lands and from aircraft carriers, both of which are staffed by thousands of american somebodies. just like those destroyer ships. at every turn in the military separatiooperation, you will fi, intel analysts, linguists, flight crew and cooks, even war plans rely on thousands of people who will pulled to a new duty which calls reshoulshufflir and wide and this affects our military families." again, that's a quote from two of the wives of our servicemen.

i hope all my colleagues will read this letter. i hope they'll understand that the decisions we make this week about whether or not to go to war in syria have a human dimension. if we expect the brave men and women in our military to go to foreign lands and risk their lives on our behalf, we have a moral obligation to ensure that they and their families have the support and the resources that are required. sequestration i has already inflicted more severe damage on our military and we've now only a couple of weeks before another $52 billion is being slashed from an already devastated military budget. i've been clear and i don't -- that i don't support the president's call for military action in syria. he still hasn't presented congress and the american people with a plan for what he wants to accomplish, how he intends to accomplish it or how he intends to pay for it. will the president pay for this operation with more furloughs and by grounding more squadrons again? the c.n.o. has already come forward and stated that if

operations in syria extend into october, he will not be able to afford it and will likely require supplemental funding from congress. furthermore, the president hasn't told us how a strike in syria fits into a broader strategy for the middle east. what we've -- we decide to do is not just about syria, it's bigger than that. this is about the growing threat from iran, stability in the middle east, and our commitment to israel and allies and our ability to respond to other contingencies that are there. you know, i recall knowing what was going to happen -- this is 4 1/2 years ago. this is back when president obama was first elected, his first election, and i knew that when he came out with his first budget that he was going to do something devastating to the military. and so i -- i -- i put myself into afghanistan, knowing with the tanks going back and forth, that i'd be able to get the -- the interest and the -- the attention of the american people. and it worked. and so that very first budget

4 1/2 years ago, he did away with our own fifth-generation bomber, the f-22, did away with our future combat system, the first ground capability increase in about 50 years, did away with our lift capacity, the c-17. he -- and then the worst thing, which i hope doesn't turn out to be the worst thing -- create the worst problem for america, did away with the ground-based operation in poland. now, that was just the first budget. that was 4 1/2 years ago. and since that time, he's -- in his extended budget, he's taken $487 billion out of the milita military. and it sequestration, it will be another half a trillion dollars. and this just can't happen. you know, it's not just me that's saying this. i -- people would expect it more from me. i am the ranking member on the senate armed services committee. i go over there and i -- i work with these guys and i know just the problems that they have. i would say -- suggest that not just me, but admiral winifield, who is the second highest military guy, the vice chairman

of the joint chiefs of staff, could be for the -- said this could be -- there could be for the first time in my career -- this is an admiral speaking now, second highest person in our military -- instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we will have to say we cannot. and then go to the very top person, general dempsey. general dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said -- quote -- "our military force is so degraded, so unready, it would be immoral to use force." i only say this because we're going to be faced with this case. and i would say that i would have been -- i would be opposed to this even if my amendment to postpone the sequestration on the military for one year. however, even if that passes, i would still oppose this from taking place. i don't think many people in america realize what has happened under the obama administration to our military. well, i've just stated what has happened. this is certainly not a time when we would increase and use

force in syria. keep in mind, when general dempsey said it would be immoral to use force, we are so degraded, and that's exactly what we'll be voting on in the next couple days. with that, i yield the floor. and suggest an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. k the sey: mr. president,

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 220 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 220 to authorize representation by the senate legal counsel in the case of wade versus miller et.al. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, september

10, 2013, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following any leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. further, that at 11:00 a.m. the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s.j. res. 21 and the time until noon be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. finally, that the senate recess from 12:00 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it

adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the ! and a rook at some of the numbers from the "hill newspaper" this is the senate and how from various -- reports and comments they have

been making. which members would be leaning toward a military strike. the yes leaning yes is 26 senators. and no orleansing no is 15. needed to pass 51 in the senate. and we want to let you know you can join the conversation as well on facebook, and let us know what you think about military intervention in syria. that's our facebook page, facebook.com/c-span. and leave your opinion there as well. issue before the fcc. we have lot of them. issues are diverse because of many ways the fcc overcease the digital economy. which accounts for as much as one sixth of the economy itself. there are a few things we have gone on in the particular interest. one is wireless communications.

and you can look around the proliferation of phones, that's probably no surprise that it's an area of real interest. but you also have to consider some of the numbers. we now have more wireless phones in this country than people. one in three american adults now have a tablet computer. all of those devices are using more of our air waives than ever before. and we're just getting started because worldwide mobile data demand going to grow up 13 time in the next five years. the fcc has a lot on it plate when it comes to our air waves. the newest fcc commissioner on issues fashion the fcc tonight on ""the communicators" at 8:00 eastern on c span -- c-span2. next from today's "washington journal" a discussion about the congressional agenda this week this is forty minutes.

>> host: congress is back in session today after the five-week august recess with plenty of issues on its plate. including a major budgetary deadline. joining us now to talk about this and make sense of all the of these issues are two veteran congressional reporters, including washington examer's susan. and "politico." let's start with you and tackle the syrian issue first we've been talking about this morning with our viewers. what is the timeline for congressional action on this resolution that the president is pushing, and when are we going see the final decisive vote here? >> guest: it's going start this week. it happens very quickly. the senate is the first one that is going act. senator harry reid, the majority leader, is going begin the procedural notion have a vote by midweek. we're looking at probably a wednesday, cloture vote which requires 60 votes in order to move forward to a final vote at the critical vote in the senate.

it's going to be very close. uncertain whether they can get to 60. that's critical. what the house does is not clear at this point. the house may vote this week, they may push it to next week. at the least, if the senate passes a measure, the house will act by next week inspect is moving very, very quickly. the administration is really launching a full-court press right now. >> host: the issue on the faculty-court press is it gaining traction this week on capitol hill? >> guest: it hasn't gained traction yet. in fact, i heard some lawmakers say yesterday they feel over the past week support has dwindled with people coming in to give classified briefings, the release of the latest video which appears to be the aftermath of the attack. the support is not there despite the evidence. what you're going it see this week is more intensified. presidents expected on dhoil talk privately with democrats. we need push the vote victory.

he's going to be addressing the nation as anybody knows on tuesday night trying to convince the public. there will be more classified briefings and the president will be talking to most of the television networks too. his dual approach is try to convince the public and thus get congress along with hill on if he gets them both at the same time. the problem is that people think it may be a little bit too late that momentum has just shifted away from the idea of supporting a strike. so the question here he's right on the edge. can he move things along this week. while all the members are back. a lot weren't here last week during the briefings. it's at the point now i don't think anyone is 100% sure. right now if there would be a vote it probably wouldn't pass. >> where does the president look to find the numbers? >> guest: i think he need to look more likely to support

him. people on the republican side john mccain, lindsey graham. kelly ayotte who will vote along with mccain graham on the armed forces issues. and look for the faithful democracies. one key groups will he will seek support is the congressional black caucus. a lot do not support the idea of the military strike. they will get their own special classified briefing today. and i think he'll make the case to try to get, you know, for the sake of loyal if i get their support for this. there are 43 members. they could be a sizable group to push it over in the house. >> host: what is the syrian debate done to the budgetary calendar that congress was preparing to tackle before the issue came up? >> guest: it delayed it. there's not a lot of time to act. as you know, did f the congress doesn't adopt a continuing resolution by end of the month, the government will shut down. nine or legislative days in the

house in session this month. so how that issue is resolved is unclear. erick cantor signaled late last week they were going to move forward with a short-term measure probably funding the government mid december. it's uncertain what it would look like. whether or not the funding level would be acceptable to democrats. there's a push to defund obamacare through the continuing resolution. a lot of republicans don't support and the democrats don't support. it's a major fight that sort of fallen off the map because the syrian issue is taking up the oxygen in the room. once that issue is passed in congress they'll have to deal with this right away. how there's a resolution to that, at this point, is unclear. >> host: one of the resolutions might be a government shut down or at least some folks have threatened that over the funding for bureaucracy. what has happened to those threats of shutting down the government?

>> guest: there's a letter circulates among members for the tea party support-republican faction who believe he shouldn't put anymore money to the funding the government unless there's a delay in the affordable care act. or stripping the funding from if from any funding resolution moving forward. that really is the unknown factor in funding the government. i think there's less concern about the time element. congress doesn't have a hard time quickly passing short term measures. sometimes they operate a little bit better when nay don't have a lot of time sit around and argue and get political about these things. the unknown quantity here is the group. will they try to block short term bill over this? i'm leaning no. i think a few months they'll support it. there will be a longer fight to fund the 2014 budget until the end of the year. i think there you may see a

bigger fight funding the affordable care act. the short term measure,ic, you say mae see them go along and support it. and i feel pretty confident there won't be -- >> host: we're talking with the washington examer. and "politico" senior congressional reporter. we want to here your -- hear your comments and questions. budgetary issues, syria, now is your chance to call in and ask two of the experts on those issues. and our phone lines are open if you want to start doing that as folks are dialing, though, manu, talk about immigration. an issue at the top of the congressional agenda heading to the congressional recess. where is it as we head out of the congressional recess? >>. >> >> guest: -- bipartisanship majority earlier this week.

but what has happened in the house in a big divide over how to move forward. one of the things that republicans are saying they want advance until the house is enforcement bills that -- rather than the contentious issue about the pathway to citizenship for the 11 million or so -- >> host: the breaking of the senate bill to separate pieces. >> guest: that's right. that seems the direction the house is going go. it could lead to an area where, you know, if they short a pass ordinary row measure they could presumely try to negotiate some sort of pack thaj deal with the senate. that is a very, very complicated contentious debate. the house and senator are nowhere near each other at the moment. republicans themselves are divided in how to move forward. how the syrian issue is resolved. whether or not we have the big fiscal fight in the fall over

what the government spending resolution as well as raising the debt ceiling by mid october. it could further delay or jeopardize imdwraition particularly as it moves closer and closer to the midterm election. >> >> caller: two things. first off, if i was in congress, i would let it be known if not public at least privately to the administration there's no way i could even consider supporting syria until you come completely clean on benghazi and stop the process and the other scan scandals to come clean. just the factor in government and the president cannot be trusted. because of him the butch -- butcher of benghazi. using children as an crutch and

excuse for the movement, well when he was senator of illinois at least two sometimes he voted against the bosch again live act. children born surviving adoption should be laying there to die. he funded all kinds of increased the funding to planned parenthood, which is a genocide organization. the administration is no position to moralize about this. >> host: i'm going cut you off there. susan, going the first part of the caller's question. what happened to the issue of benghazi in congress in recent months? are we going to see it back on the calendar sneer. >> i think it's not an issue that will completely go away. republicans ared adamant they want the investigation to continue will there's a lot unresolved. yesterday came up nearing the one-year anniversary of the attack. september, 11th, 2012.

nobody has been arrested yesterday. one of the interesting -- was one by the talk show host asking why there haven't been arrest of obvious culprit the news media have been able to track the people down in libya. there are many unanswered questions. i expect you'll see continue bring it up and talk about it in the coming months. i don't think we have seen the end of it at all. >> host: and james aired writes in a tweet about the the affordable care act and some of the issues that come up. i want to know who the navigators are and how they got their contracts. talk about the affordable care act, and where it is on the congress' agenda right now. >> guest: republicans made clear last week they're going continue whatever they can do dismantle or delay the affordable care act. i heard erick cantor sent a memo to house republicans laying out the agenda.

the house republicans will continue to take votes to try to repeal the affordable care act. it's been done some 40 time or so. that's going to be a fruitless endeavor who has no chance of passing the senate that will never be signed in to law by the president. with the fight now internally with the republican party. whether or not they tried to do anything to delay or defund element of the affordable care act through the continuing resolution. as we mentioned earlier a big push among tea party conservatives to do that. something that the sloip not quite ready to go for it. >> host: herby up next in moss point, mississippi. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i would like to know when they are going pick up some of the black issues in trayvon martin -- type of, you know. i don't quite understand. it's always about somebody else and --

[inaudible] the black people here. and the stand your ground. you know, if you want somebody to stand their ground i think black people have a reason to stand their ground. i felt it was -- [inaudible] >> host: susan, one of the issues that might come up is voting right act. talk about what is going on with the issue. >> guest: if the voting rights act does end up on the floor, i think it's possible to happen in the senate. or likely than the house. because the republican-lead house know it's a tough political issue. they may not want to put their members up for a vote like that. particularly heading in to an election year. you may see it happen in the senate and put pressure on the house. it's a tough political issue the court ruled on it in a way that was unsatisfactory to a lot of members of the congressional black caucus and members in congress. they felt it should be a little bit more targeted.

i think there's a possibility you'll see that. i think heading in to a election year it's a tough political issue, and the combination of those two things often equates to inaction. so again, an important issue. one that may be tough to ever really move through congress. >> yeah. i see that energize. it's going to be the democracy -- it would be one they do close to the election. whether there's a revolution highly doubtful in this environment. >> host: are there other issue you believe might need to be put off since we are coming up on the 2014 election that have to bait until early 2015 because of the politic of an elections year? >> guest: we mentioned immigration. that could be one of them. it would be the biggest one given how much years it's been congress hasn't passed a sprawling immigration law since 1986. they failed to do it in 2007.

they could fail to do it again as we get closer to the election. obvious, the farm bill, too. that's big bill that divided both parties. both houses, you know, the senate passed a bill that included the issue of food stamps in there. nutritional programs for lower income folks. house stripped that out and kept it more mar narrowly focused. that's a big divide between the two chamber. maybe deal with short term stopgap measure. getting a bigger deal on the farm bill could be hard as well. >> host: we're talking with susan of the "washington examiner." and "politico" senior congressional reporter. taking your calls and questions on congress' agenda now they are officially back in session after the five-week recess. linda is for texas on our democratic line. linda, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i have two things i would like to ask. one is do you know anything in

the obama act or coming up in congress that deals with how they treat people who are attending pain clinics who are being made to take urine tests because they're taking certain medications? and also, have to turn over a list of controlled medication to the state police now. if you are taking those substances. that's my first question. i find highly insulting, and very disturbing that they texas, of course, would be the first state to jump on the wagon. we have a whole segment coming up in the next 5 minutes of the "washington journal" talking about the affordable care act and ongoing series we're running on the "washington journal" about different part of the act and the implementation. might be something to pick up in that segment unless it's something one of you two have heard about? >> guest: i have not heart

about that specifically. >> we'll go to fred from huntsville, alabama on the independent line. fred, good morning. >> caller: good morning, "washington journal" and the guests! you moderators do a good job. i don't your job. i wouldn't last a day. they would to take me on and off a straitjacket. some of the people calling in get on any nerves. >> host: what is your comment or question? >> caller: president's agenda. i think they should go ahead and resolve the thing about syria first. should be pretty simple. most americans don't the president. they need to attack -- then they need to go to revisit the voting right act. then -- you see what i'm saying. there's so much on their plate, i just don't know how much they can get done. right now the main focus should be syria. being a retired veteran, i think the plan they have is stupid. you ask any of the general if you were to get them off to the side privately. they would tell you that this is one dumb plan and no military

person would ever think of doing something this -- you know. thank you. >> host: talk about some of the criticism that the white house is faced for delaying this vote, and what that does on the military side of this. >> guest: delaying the syria vote? >> host: yes. >> guest: you know, they faced a -- the president faced criticism being looking indecisive on the issue. at one point probably a couple of weeks ago it appeared they were moving raptly toward military strike. they were not going seek congressional approval. they were going move forward with something. members of congress were saying this it. they were expecting something to happen imminently. when the president went before the saturday -- nine days ago now and said he was going to seek congressional approval. it stunned so many folks. they saw it happening instantly.

they have delayed things for weeks. it looks like the syrian regime, the assad regime may be making adjustments and planning accordingly and anticipating the military strikes may happen. element of surprise is maybe some have advocated. a major military intervention there. that's something the administration -- it's difficult they are trying to sell the war the criticism -- this will be effect pitch the military interveption. and the reason why it may not be is people were countied about it. because, you know, the president has sort of -- has, you know, indicated which direction he was going to head before, you know, moving any of the element of surprise. >> host: an e-mail from cj from bow can are ton, florida. obama said he didn't need the congress. now somebody hiding his mother's skirt he wants to throw it in the lap of congress he has

bashed and trashed since day one. how ironic. talk about what happens to the president's position with congress. his ability to move measures through congress if he loses this push to approve action in syria. >> host: there's consensus he would lose leverage with congress. it would be a blow to him as the president and someone who has some kind of sway how congress acts. i think one of the interesting things i'm hearing throughout the debate. members of congress are saying his ability to help congress -- his relationship with member of congress have been so weak in general that's one of the reasons he's had such a hard time moving a tough bill like syria. on the talk shows and various interviews. lawmakers are saying that the president has never really reached tout them. there was a lawmaker, a republican on yesterday who said that he called the president and said, i'm here to help.

and i'll help you get this over the finish line. and the white house didn't return his call. there's already a real troubled relationship. people say it's going make things a lot worse. i would say the president already has a real difficult time trying to get congress to do what he wants. we can see evidence of that. it's a split congress. it's democrat and republican. so already he has a hard time moving things. it will make him look weaker and make him look more incompetent if he tries to put it forward and it fails. >> host: on the issue we're talking about now. bioclerk writes in on twitter. if we needed a do-nothing congress. now is the time for one. one more e-mail this morning from paul h. on the subject of syria. i don't expect the house republicans will stand up to the president when national security is at stake. and it is. if the syrian situation isn't dealt with now, we'll pay for it later. it will be messy either way. one of the tweet i want to ask you about, manu from gary on

twitter. do your gusts expect congress to increase the debt limit without strings? i'm sure rrk eb will want something in return and obama said no. >> guest: he just laid out exactly the debate right now. the thing that the house republicans are demanding are cuts that are e actual to the amount the debt ceiling would be raised, and in addition to budget reform and other issues they will need. should be tied to the debt ceiling increases. the difference between right now and when the republicans demanded this in 2011, the time in 2011 the white house said they would be willing to negotiate. of course, that lead to bring -- bricksmanship. 11th hour. looked like the country was going to default in the deal of the budget control act right before the debt ceiling had to be raised. and that prompted all sort of other issues including sequestration which everyone complains about today. the white house said we're not

going negotiate at all. we need to raise the debt ceiling. at this point, the two sides are nowhere near each other how it gets resolved, i don't anybody knows. >> host: susan, you agree with the assessment? >> guest: right. it's going to be a battle over whether or not the president sticks to what he said which is no negotiating. that's tough line to draw. i think there probably will be some negotiating. the problem is you already have a lot of democrats who don't want the sequester currently in place never mind additional cuts. one wonders how they're going to i don't know. i'm wondering how they move it this time to get the debt ceiling raised by mid october. i suspect it may push beyond that. i think there will be a comprise that will have to involve perhaps dealing with entitle element. that's a way out. there is some common industrial and view between both the democrats and republicans we need to do something about medicare. that could be sort of the way out on the debt ceiling tight.

-- fight. that is a big issue trying to tackle something like medicare. >> guest: once you add the entitlement in the democrat and the white house will say we need to do something about tax. >> that's the issue of the grand bargain. short of shifted to the back burner. we come up with a spending strategy that involves taxes and does involve the entitlement that one of the biggest accomplishment of congress of all time if they manage to pull it up. it will come up in the congress debate. >> host: we're talking your comment and questions this morning about -- talking about congress' full agenda. darwin is up from little elm, texas. good morning. democratic line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: go ahead. >> guest: first of all, i would like to say our president doing what he can, but what i

don't understand is in syria. okay. we're supposed to have the support from our allies, and they said they would. think about that. there are muslims and they feel like each one of their countries is their brothers. i think they are -- they are using us to take care of their battles. they really don't look at us as an ally. we look at them as allies. and that's hurting our peoples. and another thing, on the farm bill, on the issue that the man talked about from alabama as far as black people and also the republican in the democrattings, susan said, well, i don't

believe this come up before the senate and so on. with the the peoples' america, spanish, black, white, others from other countries, when they came over here and set up our government, they was from england. well, they use that part of their government that they know in use to bail out ours. i know we went through a lot. we still are going through a lot. it's time for us to stand up and go for america. >> host: that was darwin from little elm texas. jeff is up. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i love c-span. it's one of my favorite shows. i want to back up little bit. one of your tweeters how they got their contract and one of the guests elaborate on that.

what are they? how do they get their jobs? another question, it seems like obama is pulling out all the stops here to get us involved in syria. i'm wondering one your guest speculate why he wouldn't do that to create any of the job -- [inaudible] thank you very much. >> guest: we having a segment on this after this affordable care act. the navigator issue is something that will come up there for time purposes. let's focus on the second part of his question about the president's all-out push on syria. is it something we didn't see on some of the other legislation that the president has champion or said he's championing? >> guest: i think the difference between this or something he called for on jobs is the thing on jobs no one expected a chance passing because the increasing spending on infrastructure whether it's

funded by new taxes and things that happens generally wouldn't go for. things that, you know, help and energize and unit his party, but not necessarily lead to bipartisan consensus in a divided congress. the difference here in syria is he needs a divided congress to come together. it's an enormous gamble in the presidency. will be one of the most defining moment of the obama administration legacy. it could be a huge vict or embarrassment. the whole world watching. i bet you that's why you're seeing the president go to the extreme length to sell this and doing something rare. giving a prime time address like he's doing. sticking his e neck out with the prospect uncertain. >> host: susan, can you equate it to any oh issue he's pushed over the past five years? >> guest: well, i would say certainly health care reform was a huge push, but a lot of the

weight was carried by the minority leader, who was then speaker, nancy pelosi. she got it past. we're going to leave this for a moment and take you live to one of the area where c-span's camera are getting members of congress as they exit closed-door meetings today. representative steve israel now. [silence] [silence]

then we did have steve there a moment. his remarks are over. we're going make them available at c-span.org. and just for a moment we're going hold here and see if any other lawmakers or other officials are passing by. again, the obama administration has been briefing members of congress today throughout the afternoon on the situation in syria. and whether the u.s. should military attacks in that country.

[silence] we are trying to bring you various comments, any remarks from members of congress and other officials on capitol hill from some of the areas where we have our cameras staked out there. again, they have been in closed-door meeting getting intelligence updates and

classified briefings from the obama administration. we heard earlier on the floor of the senate that it looks like any vote on the resolution on syria will be postponed. we'll keep you updated there. and for now we are going return to the segment we were watching on washington journal taking look at the congressional agenda. and congress is back in session today after the five-week august recess with plenty of issues on its plate. including a major budget fair deadline. joining us now to talk about this and make sense of all of these issues are two veteran congressional reporters. including "exam examiner's susan, and "politico." let start with you and tack the syrian issue we've been talking about this morning with the viewers bhap is the timeline for congressional action on the resolution that the president is pushing? and when are we going see the final decisive vote here? >> well, it's going it start this week.

it happens very quickly. the senate is the first one that will act. harry reid the majority leader is going begin the procedural motion to have a vote by midweek. we're looking at probably a wednesday cloture vote, which requires 60 votes in order move forward to a final vote. that is a critical, critical vote in the senate. it's going to be very close. uncertain whether they can get to 60. what the house does is not clear at this point. the house may vote this week. they may push it to next week. if the senate passes a measure, the house will act by next week. this is moving very, very quickly. that's why the administration is really launching a full-court press right now. >> host: and susan on the issue of the full-court press. is it gaining traction this week on capitol hill? are you seeing it? >> guest: it hasn't gained traction yet. in fact, i heard some lawmakers say yesterday they feel over the past week support has dwindled despite flooding the zone with the administration with the

people coming in to give classified briefings. the release of the latest video showing what appears to be the aftermath of the chemical attack. the support not there. what you're going see is more intebs fie flooding of the zone. president expected on capitol hill to talk privately with democrats. he needs to help push the vote to victory. he's going to be addressing the nation, as everybody knows, on tuesday night trying to convince the public. will will be more classified briefings. the president will be talking to most of the television networks too. his dual approach here is try to convince the public and thus get congress along with him on if he gets the vote at the same time. the problem is that people think this may be a little bit too late that momentum shifted away from the idea of supporting a strike he's right on the edge. can he move things along week? while the members are back? a lot weren't here last week during the briefings. it's at the point why i don't

think anyone is 100 part sure where it's going. >> host: where does the president look for to find the numbers? we have seen counts this number the numbers aren't looking great as of today. the latest numbs we have. >> guest: that's right. i think he needs to look for certain people more likely to support him. people on the republican side john mccain, lindsay graham, perhaps kelly ayotte who will vote with them on the security and armed forces issue. he'll look for the faithful democrats. one of the key groups he'll seek support is the congressional black caucus. a lot don't support it. they'll get the special own classified briefing today. i think he'll make the case to try to get at least for the sake of loyalty get their support. there are 43 members they could be a sizable group to push it over in the house.

>> host: what is the care ya debate done to the budgetary calendar that congress has preparing to tackle before the issue came up? >> guest: it delayed it. there's not a lot of time to act. as we know, if the congress does not adopt a continuing resolution by the end of the month, the government will shut down. i mean, there's only nine or so legislative days in the house actually in session this month. so how that issue is resolved it's unclear. erick cantor majority leader signaled late last week they're going move toward with a short term measure probably funding the government through sometime mid december. there's uncertain what it would look like. whether or not the funding level would be acceptable to democrats. and there's a big push among conservatives to defund obamacare through the continuing resolution that is something that a lot of republicans don't support and the democrat don't support. this is a big major fight that we sort of fallen off the map because the syrian issue is

taking up the oxygen in the room. once the issue is passed in congress, they center to deal with it this right way. what happened to the threat of shutting down the government? >> they're among member the tea party supportive republican faction who believe we shouldn't put anymore money to funding the government. unless there's a delay in the bureaucracy law. affordable care act or also perhaps stripping the funding from it entirely from any funding resolution moving forward. that is the unknown factor in funding the government. i think there is less concern about the time element. congress doesn't have a hard time quickly passing short term measures. sometimes they operate a little bit better when they don't have a lot of time to sit around and argue and get political about the things.

the unknown quantity is the group. will they try to block short term bill over this? i'm leading no. if it's a short term bill and a few months they may support it. it will be a longer fight how to fund the fiscal 2014 budget until the end of the year. i think there you may see a bigger fight over funding the fact. the short term measure, i think you may see them go along and support it. and i feel pretty confidence that there won't be anything close a big threat of a government shut down. kissell: we want to hear your comments and questions on congress' agenda. budgetary issues. syria now is your chance to call in and ask two of the -- expert on the issue.

talk about immigration. an issue that was at the top of the congressional agenda heading if to the congressional recess. where is it as we head out of the congressional recess? >> one of the prospect also is unclear. right now is the passed the senate by a large bipartisanship majority earlier this week. chapped in the house is a big divide over how to move forward. one of the things that republicans is saying they want to advance in the house is an enforcement bill mainly on the issue of enforcement rather than the very, very contentious issue. about a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million or so undocumented. people are here illegally. >> host: the breaking of the senate bill to separate pieces. >> guest: that's right. that is the version of the direction of the house is going to go. it could still lead to an year if they pass a short narrow measure. they could presumably go to conference and friend and try to

negotiate some sort of package deal with the senate. but that is a very, very complicated cob contentious debate. they are nowhere near each other at the moment. the republicans are divided on how to move forward. how the syrian issue is resolved. whether or not we have the big fiscal fight on the fall over the government spending resolution. that could further delay or jeopardize immigration particularly as it moves closer and closer to the midterm elections. >> host: we are talking with susan and manu. nick from clarksville, tennessee. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: ged. -- go ahead. >> caller: if i was in congress, i would threat be known if not publicly at least privately to the administration there's no way i can even

consider supporting you on syria until you come clean on benghazi and stop the process on the other scandal to come clean. trust is a major factor in the government. the president cannot be trusted. now, on another matter the administration is using children as a crunch and excuse for the movement. well, he when he was senatorring illinois, at least two times he vote against the born again live act. which means children born surviving abortion should be laid there to die. he's increased the funding to planted parenthood which is a genocide organization. so he's -- the administration is in no position to moralize about this. >> host: i'm going cut you off there. susan, going back to the first part of the caller's question. he taunted benghazi. what happened to the issue of benghazi? in congress in recent months?

are we going it see it back on the displarnd >> guest: i think it's not thash will completely go away. republicans are adamant they want the innovation continue. there's a lot that is unresolved. i think yesterday it came up near the one-year anniversary of the attack. it happened on september 11th, 2012. nobody has been arrested yet. one of the interesting question on the sunday talk show was one by a talk show host asking why there haven't been arrests of obvious culprit when the news media have been to be track the people down in libya. there are many unanswered questions. i expect you'll see congress bring it up and talk about it in the coming months. i don't think we have seen the end of it at all. >> host: james writes in a tweet about the affordable care act and some of the issues that come up in that. he writes, i want to know who the navigators are and how they got their contracts. talk about the affordable care

act, and where it is on congress' agenda right now. >> guest: republicans made clear last week they're going continue whatever they can do dismanhattan -- dismantle or delay the affordable care act. that's what erick cantor said in a memo that he sent to republicans last week. to try to repeal the frangt. something they have done some forty times or so. that's going tab fruitless endeavor that has no chance of passing senate that will never be signed in to law by the president. with the fight now with internally and the republican party whether or not they tried to do anything to delay or defund element of the affordable care act through the continuing resolution. ..

the standard ground. if you want somebody to stand your ground i think we have a reason to stand our ground. >> host: susan ferrechio one of the issues that might come up as the voting rights act. talk about what's going on with that issue. >> guest: it if the voting rights act does end up on the floor i think it's possible to happen in the senate more likely than the house.

the republican-led house knows that's a tough political issue and they may not want to put their members of for a vote like that particularly as we are heading into an election year. you may see it happen in the senate and they will put pressure on the house. it's a tough issue. the court ruled on it in a way that was unsatisfactory to a lot of members of the congressional black caucus and a lot of members in general and congress. they felt it should be a little bit more targeted so i think there's a possibility you will see that and we are heading into an election year. it's a real tough issue and those two things often equate to an action so again a real important issue and one that may be tough to ever really move through congress. i don't know if manu might agree. >> guest: is certainly one that they do closer to the election whether there is a resolution highly doubtful.

>> host: are there other issues that you believe might need to be put off since we are coming up on the 2014 election that will have to wait until early 2015 because of the politics of an election year? >> guest: we mentioned immigration and that could certainly be one of them. é biggest one. how many years it's been since congress has passed an immigration law since 1986. they fail to do it in 2007 and they could very well fail to do it again as we get closer to election and of course the farm bill too. that is divided both parties in both houses. the senate passed a bill that included the issue of food stamps and there and nutritional programs for lower income folks. the house strip that out and kept it more narrowly focused. that is a big divide between the two chambers. maybe they will just have to deal with some short-term stopgap measure but getting a bigger deal on the farm bill could be hard as well.

>> host: we are talking with susan ferrechio of the "washington examiner" the chief congressional correspondent there and politico senior congressional reporter manu raju taking your calls and questions on congress's agenda now that they are officially back in session after a five-week recess. linda is from arena taxes on our democratic line. linda, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i have two things i would like to ask. one is do you know anything in the act coming up in congress that deals with how they treat people who are attending. >> clinics who are being made to take tests because they are taking certain medications? and also certain controlled medication to state police now. if you are taking those substances. that is my first question. i find it far highly insulting and very disturbing.

texas of course would be the first state to jump on that wagon. >> host: we have a whole segue coming up in our next 45 minutes in the "washington journal" talking about the affordable care act in an ongoing series we are running on the "washington journal" about different parts of that act and its implementation. it might be something to pick up in that segment and unless it's something one if you too have heard about. >> guest: i have not heard about that specifically. >> host: we will go to fred now from huntsville alabama on our independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning ladies and gentlemen and guests. you moderators do a real good job. i appreciate your job. i wouldn't last today. they would have to take me off in a straitjacket because some of these people that call and get on my nerves. >> host: what is your comment or question? >> caller: the president's agenda. i think they should resolve the thing about syria first. it should be simple because most parents don't want it and then they need to attack -- to

revisit the voters rights act and there is so much going on on their plate. i just don't know how much they can get done. right now the main focus should be syria and their being a retired veteran i think the plan that they have this stupid. you could probably ask any of those generals if you could get them off to the side privately and they would tell you that this is oneyñ plan and no -- president would think of doing something this myopic. >> host: manu raju talk about some of the criticism the white house has faced for delaying this vote and what that does on the military side of this. >> guest: humane be syria vote >> host: yes. >> guest: they have really faced -- the president has faced criticism for being indecisive on this issue and at one point a couple of weeks ago it appeared that they were moving very very

rapidly to a military strike and they were not going to seek congressional approval that they were really going to move forward with something and members of congress were saying that they're expecting something to happen imminently but when the president went before on a saturday about nine days ago now and said he was going to seek congressional approval that's done so many folks because they saw this happening instantly. that has delayed things for weeks and it looksokk like the assad regime maybe make someh÷ adjustments and we are anticipating these to let terry ñ happen and supplies may be lost and that's something that john mccain has raised that advocate military intervention there. that's something the ç -- it's difficult because as he tries to sell this war and the criticism coming from members oq congress whether not this'll be effective, of this military intervention and the reason why it may not be and people are

concerned about it is because the president has indicated which direction he was going to head before losing any of that element. >> host: an e-mail from cj from boca raton florida on this issue. cj notes that obama already said he didn't need the congress. rç he wants to throat in the lap of congress that he has bashed and trash since day one. how ironic. talk about what happens to to the presence position with congress and his ability to move measures to the congress if he loses this push to approve action in syria. >> guest: there is some consensus that he would lose leverage with congress, that this would be a blow to him as the president as someone who has some kind of sway over how congress acts. i think one of the interesting things i'm hearing throughout this debate is members of congress are saying his ab!]cvv

to help sway congress and his relationships with members ofoiç congress have been so weak in general but that is one of the reasons he has had such a hard time moving a tough bill like=h syria. on all the talk shows and all the various polling interviews lawmakers are saying that the president has really never reached out to them. there was a lawmaker republican on yesterday who said that he called the president said i'm here to help and i will help you get this over the finish line. the white house didn't return his calls so there is already a little troubled relationship. people say this is going to make things a lot worse. i would say the president already has a real difficult time trying to get congress to do what he wants in d.c. at events of that. it's a split congress democrat and republican and as hard a hard time moving things. this will make them look weaker. it will make him look more incompetent if he tries to move us for details. >> host: on the issue we are talking about -- if we ever

needed a do-nothing congress now is the time for one. one more e-mail this morning ÷ paul h onf syria. i don't expect the house republicans will stand up for the present even when national security is at stake and it it is. if the syrian situation is dealt with now we will pay for it later. it will be messy either way. another tweet i want to ask you about manu raju, this is from gary on twitter. tear gas expect congress to increase the debt limit without strings? i am sure our eb's will want something in return and obama has said no. >> guest: it may not exactly be in the debate right now. the thing house republicans are demanding our cuts are equal to the amount that the debt ceiling would be raised and in addition to budget reforms and other issues that they believe should be tied to the debt ceiling increase. the difference between right now

and let the republicans demanded in 2011 was at the time in 2011 the white house that they'd be willing to negotiate and of course that led to brinksmanship and 11th hour brinksmanship. the country was going to default and it led to the deal on the budget control act right before the debt ceiling had to be raised and that pumped in all sorts of other issues including sequestration that everyone complains about today. the white house this time says we are not going to negotiate at all. we just need to raise the debt ceiling. now this point the two sides are nowhere near each other. how that gets resolved i don't think it anyone knows. >> host: susan supple and you agree with that issue? >> guest: it's about whether the president sticks to what he said which is no negotiating. that is a tough line to draw and i think you're probably will be some negotiating. the problem is you're to have a lot of democrats who want -- don't want to sequester in emplace let alone the additional cuts.

like manu i'm wondering how they're going to move this time to get the debt ceiling raised by mid-october. i suspect it will push beyond that but i think there will be compromise that's going to have to involve perhaps dealing with entitlements. that is a the way out where there is some common2mc values d we need to do something about medicare. that could be sort of the way b out on the debt ceilingqru fight but that again is a real big issue to tackle something like medicare. >> guest: i would add once you add the entitlements that democrats in the white house will say we need to do something about that. we will give you something on entitlements if you raise revenues. >> guest: that is the issue of the grand bargain that everyone has been talking about all year. it's sort of slipped to the back burner but it's one where we, both with a great big spending strategy that does involve taxes and entitlements. that will be one of the biggest accomplishments of congress of

all time if they managed to pull that off. it will come up the debt ceiling debate. >> host: we are taking your comments and questions as we talk about congress's full agenda as they returned to work today. darwin is up next from taxes on their democratic line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: first of all i would like to say our president is doing what he can but what i don't understand is in syria, okay now we still have the support from our allies and they said they would help us. let's, the thing about that, they are all muslims are and each one of the countries is -- [inaudible] and they are using us to take care of their battles.

they really don't look at us as an ally. we look at them as allies and another thing on the farm deal, on the issue the man talked about from alabama for black people and also the republicans and the democrats who say i don't believe this has come up and so one. we the people of america are spanish, mexican, white and descendents from other countries. when they came over here and they set up our government they were from england. they used that part of their government that they knew and used it to bail out. i knew we went through a lot and we still are going through a lot but it's time for us to stand up

>> host: that was darwin.ñ >> host: we are pleased to welcome for the first time to  communicators" table new fcc commissioner jessica rosenworcel.prh commissioner rosenworcel welcome to "the communicators."8bhñ if you would, startyv2÷by talkig about some of the issues that you foresee the fcc dealing with this coming fall. >> guest: first of all thank you for having me here on the

show.osç thank you also= to c-span for e great public service work that you do and have done for decades. we have a lot of issues, issues diverse because the fcc oversees the digital information economy which by some measure's accounts for as much as one sixth of the economy itself. i think there are few things we have going on in particular interests. one of those involves wireless communications and you can look around at the proliferation of phones and that's probably no surprise since it's a real interest. but you also have to consider some of the numbers. we have more wireless phones in this country. the all of those devices very using more and more airwaves than ever before. mobile data demand is going to

grow 13 times the next five years. the fcc has a lot on his plate when it comes to our airwaves in how we use them. we have some traditional auctions on deck putting more of her airwaves in the hands of -- to make it available for mobile broadband and trying new and innovative options putting even more airwaves and automated hands. on top of that we have traditional networks in the ground and the broadband beneath us is just as important as the airwaves all around us. we have the ip transition which is really a conversation about what is the next generation of infrastructure look like and i think we will have to make decisions that the agency and perhaps from some trial so that we can identify the best policies and incentivize private investment to make sure that consumers all benefit is the network says they are deployed.

on top of that we are doing schools. i am really excited about that. the e-rate program is from the telecommunications act of 1996. if you think about it was quite a while ago. they put the rules in place for that in 1998. i think in 1998 i was calling the internet the information superhighway so that i think we should give congress credit for the purpose of the e-rate program which is the country's largest program. to make sure we wire all the schools in the country to the internet and by some measures we have done a great job. when the program was put in place we had just 14% of public schools connected to the internet. now that number is probably above 95% so it looks like we are doing a good job. but i would say the issue now is not connection. its capacity. we need to make sure that there are connections high capacity for the broadband age and at my

office we spent some time looking at this program and trying to understand it better. and we realized the connections we have today about half of heart you rate schools are connected. three make -- three megabits or less is not a speed you will use for the most innovative teaching tools. it's not a speed you can use to watch high-definition streaming video and i don't think it's a speed we can use to educate the next generatiogeneratio n of stem hombre turnersymñ@

so i think we can let other nations lead the way but we can make choice to do things ourselves and if we take the e-rate program which we are to have authorization for from congress and revamp it and we have rebooted and refocus its own capacity we can do a lot. >> host: you have put a lot on on the table in joining a conversation to talk about these issuesiv as "communications daily"'s senior editor howard buskirk create. >> guest: you mentioned two big issues that i think there's dominate the agenda over the next year. the first was theok incentive auction and i wonder from your perspective how far along she think it is and what are the pressure points and what are the concerns about the auction going forward? the goal hasú÷÷ been to do one n 2014 but that looks like it could be difficult. >> guest: i would say for starters that i'm confident that

i can be ready to do these auctions in 2014 and i actually have confidence in the agency's ability to do so to match. i think we can move ahead and get these auctions done by the end of 2014. >> guest: we are waiting for the senate to confirm how your and michael riley chairman and commissioner respectively comes i'm just wondering if that process takes a while could that complicate having 2014 incentive

auction? >> guest: i hope it doesn't take a while but i would also say that time marches on and technology is advancing and i think the agency has its work to do. >> guest: them on the rate you discuss that but that is another issue i understand to get a lot of congressional attention among congressional republicans about extending the e-rate broke them. you see that as allowing up into a fight as the fcc takes a closer look at explaining the e-rate program over the next year? >> guest: no, i don't think education or infrastructure issues are partisan. if you look back at the e-rate program it was of course as i mentioned earlier part of the telecommunications act of 1996 but it was something that was developed in a bipartisan way by senator rockefeller and senators nau and congressman now senator markey so i think it has a strong record of support and a bipartisan way and i think that will continue the future.

>> guest: one final question on that. i think the concern is for some republicans this touches on the issue of expanding government and broader political issues in washington. there is some concern that some of them will zero in on it is of the fact that they feel like it touches on a lot of issues that are of concern to them on a broader level. >> guest: i think the e-rate program has always been about national support for local control just like our schools. so i think that there is a lot of opportunity there to do good things and i think that the more people learn about it,, they think are more will be. it will have a really good effect on our markets because we can leave to every school and local jurisdictions the task of identifying how to get high-speed high-speed broadband into their schools and we can actualize the whole process could we can do it at scale and take advantage of consortium and bulk buying and bring everyone up to the same baseline. and to bring everyone up to the

same baseline what i would like to see is 100 megabits to every school by the 2015 school year and a gigabit to every school by the end of the decade. what i would like to call is dream likely and dream big that if we do that to make that capacity available nationwide we will send a signal to markets to device manufacturers and the content creators that we are going to participate in creating more content and more technology for our schools and i think over time those devices and that new content will fall within traditional textbook buying budgets. >> host: commissioner rosenworcel if i could follow up on spectrum. should there be set aside in your view for smaller companies or should it be a wide open offer? >> guest: i think we have had for the last 10 years a policy about spectrum holdings that has not a cap but a screen and we started the preceding late last

year to go and revisit that in to take another look at that. i think that's a good thing to do and i think after more than a more than decade its time. it's my hope in the upcoming auctions that we will first and foremost follow the law and the communications act requires is to make sure we think about economic opportunity and competition when we develop our auctions. middle-class tax relief and job creation tells us when we develop those options we need to make sure that one can participate in and we can have rules of general applicability. we should balance all of those things that is my hope it will have opportunities were incumbents and new entrants alike. in the end i don't think a single carrier will walk away with all this spectrum. >> host: i also wanted to follow up on howard's questions about the two nominees michael o'reilly. he also comes from the senate, senate staffers you did. do you know mr. o'reilly and knowing what you know about the senate do you think it will proceed quickly to get

mr. mueller and mr. o'reilly on board? >> guest: i know mr. overly just a little bit and i've look forward to working with him. knowing what i know about the senator did spent five years working on capitol hill. what i learned is the senate moves on the senate moves and i think you'll be up to -- when they confirm the two nominees. >> host: howard buskirk. >> guest: let me ask a follow-up question. you mentioned spectrum aggregation and no carrier should be able to buy all the spectrum so to you for see the fcc imposing some kind of restriction in terms of bidding that would keep the two dominant carriers at&t and verizon wireless from the two arduous care -- carriers? >> guest: like i said everyone should have an opportunity participate and there should be opportunities for the incumbents

there are several proposals we have before us right now and my office is looking at them. >> guest: another complaint that small carriers have had is they would like to have the spectrum sold in smaller slice sizes rather than economic sizes is that something that you are working on right now is an issue some are saying they won't participate in the auction if the license size is not small enough. >> guest: i think it's something we'll have to take a look at but i understanunderstand the simplicity of these economic areas. >> host: commissioners rosenworcel two big announcement this week in the wireless world with verizon buying out vodafone and microsoft buying a cell phone business of nokia. does the fcc have any role in those transactions? >> guest: will, i can't talk in specifics about any transactions before us or that

might be before assumed that i can tell you that we are likely to have to take a look at the verizon and vodafone transfer and it's my hope we will do that swiftly. i think the issues associated with microsoft and nokia are different because it's the combination of the company that provides operating systems with the company that develops handsets, which is an adjusting issue that's very much is affected by our wireless spectrum policies but i don't believe squarely falls within our jurisdiction. >> host: what generally bennister philosophy in approaching a merger or a buyout like a verizon vodafone? >> you have a philosophy about how the market should operate? >> guest: well i think what what we have is an obligation to act under the law and the communications act tells the fcc to take a look at transfers of licenses for things like radio airwaves and what this involves and we need to make sure on balance the transfer reflects

the public interest and necessity so we look at the merger harms and the merger benefits and then we try to assess them and make a decision swiftly and do it to the extent necessary in coordination with our colleagues at the department of justice. >> host: do you think you would move forward with a three-member commission if mr. wheeler and mr. o'reilly are not on board at that time? >> guest: that is a decision that is up to the acting chairwoman but like i said before i think time is on. technology is moving at a blistering pace. i don't think the regulatory process can slow. >> guest: i would like to ask you about firstnet. you were you were on the send step in the legislation was passed the created this network for first responders. how do you think things seem to be going so far towards construction of that network and do you have concerns? >> are hearing a lot of concerns about whether they there will be enough money to pay for it from the auctions and just the

difficulty of building a national network. i just wanted to -- what do you think as being the hard part? >> guest: let's start from the beginning. congress recognized that it had been more than a decade since the horror of 9/11 in many years since the devastation of hurricane katrina. it was just tragic we didn't have a nationwide network for first responders when they took action. the middle-class tax relief and job creation in 2012. i think that's a terrific thing. it managed to take off the the table were the last remaining recommendations from the 9/11 commission. what they did was they were served 700 megahertz band so choice spectrum for first responders across the country. and then they assigned the first responder network authority with control for pulling this network together. this is not some new uniquely public network.

it's an effort that will be ill-timed public and private partnerships. in other words it's going to be all about local control. i think it has taken a little time to get things together but from what i see i am actually fairly positive. we are seeing a lot of really good developments. i think sam ginn and -- who are running it have a lot of respect. we have a 194 million-dollar budget for the next year. on top of that they have put out 30 different grants for state and local planning and they have already made arrangements in california and new mexico to use the 700 megahertz spectrum from the recovery act money for public safety. think where making a lot of progress and i think there's more to come. >> guest: it's no longer an open question if this network will be built. it's a matter of when. would you say that? yes go yes, absolutely.

>> guest: okay and you have also been very outspoken on derecho. they they're supposed to be a final report on final recommendations following last year's derecho stormers storm which saw a lot of shutdown of 911. do you have any idea what the status of that report is and what would you like to see? is there something more that the fcc should require of carriers to prevent those kinds of outages in the future? >> guest: well let's start with -- it was a really big wind storm that happened in the atlantic a little over a year ago. it brought the country to a hault. power outages everywhere and communications failures as well. the most stunning communications failures came to our nation's 911 system. what we found in the storm was that there were 77, 911 centers

that one at least partially interoperable during the storm. 17 of them in three states lost connectivity completely. so, i called for an investigation and not only that i went and did so myself. i visited one of the centers that went fully out in fairfax county virginia just down the road. i will never forget that visit trade it's a great new center, one of the best public safety answering centers in the country but the director of that describe how during the middle of the storm the entire room went silent. he said he knew instantly there was something wrong and he was right. so in january the fcc staffed -- staff did a terrific job and did a thorough investigation. what they found were two things. they found that backup generators fail to work leading

to system failures and they also found that monitoring failed to work because of power problems. they also found carriers did not notify 911 centers as swiftly are regularly as they should. we did a rulemaking on issues like that back in march and i really hope we can bring that to some conclusion with an order soon because i think there's some common sense things we can do to prevent this from happening again. >> guest: just to be clear do you foresee that there'll have to be some additional regulations imposed to try to keep the outages from happening in the future? >> guest: i absolutely think not just in this region of the country but everywhere. this is an opportunity to put better practices in place to prevent this from happening again. >> host: you are watching "the communicators" on c-span a weekly show looking at telecommunications and some of the people behind it. this week fcc commissioner jessica rosenworcel is our guest a democrat and howard buskirk of "communications daily" is our guest reporter.

commissioner rosenworcel an issue we have talked about for years here on "the communicators" is usf reform. to you see any potential for actual reform in usf? >> guest: universal service system is a cherished part of communications. it means that no matter where you live in this country you have an opportunity to have first rate communications and its been an important part in ache in that happen in rural america. now, before i got into the agency by colleagues involved a very significant reform project. take the unit personal services and migrated it from a system focused on telephony voice can indication as to broadband and wireless sources to the real infrastructure challenges of this generation. i think that's a terrific thing. they also increased accountability in the program and they put it on a budget. it's all good. but i will also say the program has gotten very complicated and

i think that makes it hard for smaller in rural carriers to make decisions about investment in their networks. so going forward i hope you can identify ways to make it more simple so that the carriers get the support they need to provide the communications they want to provide in our most remote committees. >> host: so it's still a vital program? >> guest: absolutely. >> guest: one thing the fcc hasn't let dad is reforming the way the contribution -- the way money is paid into usf and that could be controversial because of the fact he would have to expand certain types of the medications that would cover and it could possibly be controversial at with the high-tech community and it was talked about as an additional tax. do you see that is something that the fcc is anxious to wade into at this point? >> guest: well i think it's important issue and one we'll have to consider in time. universal service policy has two

sides. it's like two sides of the claim. the funds come in and of bunch of paid out to support education services. the ways we collect funds today has been assessment on telecommunication services which in plain english means your long-distance service. i think there's an argument the ways were using their networks are changing over time and the networks we are supporting are changing over time great going into that conversation i think it would be good for us to look at the connection space system that doesn't distinguish between specific types of communications that are open to other ideas and suggestions. >> guest: won't that be very controversial especially with some of the high-tech community? >> guest: i'm not so sure. i don't know that it's important to continue to focus on discrete services. communication technologies are evolving so rapidly. the idea that we focus only on a limited set of circumstances or services over time might wind up

limiting our ability to do good things with universal service. >> host: commissioner rosenworcel you spent several years in the senate as a staffer in league with pfizer. what's it like to go from being on the staff to a frontline position? >> guest: well, i have spent some time working on these issues. i have been in the the trenches and the agencies and i have been up on capitol hill so come into this job some of these things were familiar but it's a tremendous privilege. the communications economy is one of the most dynamic sectors in our economy and they think is the privilege to have a focus on agency. >> host: how did you get involved in this area? >> guest: i worked for private law firm and i worked on the privatization of the state run company which i thought was incredibly interesting to try to identify how to make it more efficient and how to make things more competitive rate from their

i went on to work on several broadband proceedings by the fcc i had an opportunity to work in the commissioner's office and an opportunity to work for senator in a way and later for senator rockefeller so i consider myself to be very fortunate. >> guest: i wanted to ask you about the h block auction. that is an an issue to have been very outspoken and you would like to see a delay in that until the h block can be provided with other spectrum for a larger auction. could you talk about that and why you see that as an important issue? >> guest: sure. this one a sort of wonkish and i will start with the law. the middle-class tax relief and job creation act directed the fcc to auction in the traditional way 65 megahertz of spectrum. it actually enumerates some of that spectrum that includes the 2155-22180 spectrums known as

aws spectrum and also include spectrum that has been identified by the department of commerce and the 1695-1710. on top of that includes the h block which are two, five megahertz blocks at 1915- 1920 and 1995-2000 megahertz and in addition to the fcc auctioned another 50 megahertz of spectrum which we are looking at 1755- 1750 megahertz. the important thing thing to notice the 65 megahertz and a gillani to needs to be licensed by february 2015. so if we back away from that we realize we need to auction that in 2014 to meet that deadline. now i think we should auction it altogether all 65 megahertz at once. here is why. all of that spectrum i just described to you if you look at it closely is within 500 megahertz from one another which means it's a good

substitute. if they find they are not succeeding on the portion of the auction they might look at another airwave. in addition i think when he put 65 megahertz of spectrum to market you attract a lot more bidders and a lot more interest than if you just attract what you attract with just 10 megahertz of spectrum with the h block. furthermore more bidders means more interest and means more revenue, means we can take the revenue and make a down payment towards first night and help our first responders early with the more funds for their system and more funds developed for their system and more flexibility we will have down the road when it comes to incentives auctions. so i think we should auction all 65 megahertz together but it's not just me. i found some wall street analysts absolutely agree and an increasing part of our record in this proceeding also thinks alternating all at once is --

>> guest: are you making progress in trying to make get your fellow commissioners to go along with your perspective in you contemplate weighing the option? >> guest: i hope so because i think it's the best spectrum policy and i think it's the best policy for first responders under the law. >> guest: do you think it's possible that auction could go a big part of the way toward first that so you don't have to require as much money from the incentive option? >> guest: absolutely because what you want to make sure you do is attract a lot of bidders when you hold in auction. that's part -- that's one of the fundamental things when it comes to the success of an auction. the more bidders you attract the more revenue you raise in the more revenue you where you raise the more you will be able to fund first bed early and if we fund first bed early we will have a lot more flexibility when it comes to offering incentives in the incentive option down the road. >> host: jessica rosenworcel

we have talked to members of congress about couple of issues and i want to get your thoughts on whether the fcc has a role. cell phone unlocking and all a card for cable. >> guest: okay. cell phone unlocking. it turns out the librarian of congress is very powerful. late last year the library and decided that unlocking cell phones was no longer legal and the digital pollinium copyright act. frankly that just doesn't make any sense to me. i don't think you should go to jail if you want to unlock your cell phone. if you want to unlock your cell phone in your not found by some contractor obligation you should be able to do so. take it and use it on another network provider. it's my hope that events are updating the digital millennium copyright act or using the fcc to develop an industry commitment we are making real changes in that because consumers should have the freedom to do that. all a cart is a perennial issue

and i think i look at this as both a regulator and the consumer. as a consumer is hard not to set your bills for your channel lineup more than twice the rate of inflation yearly every year. it's also hard not to notice that i have lots and lots of channels that my family wants. at the same time i know that this is a system and supports some really great programming but still i see á la carte has similar. i think over time the market is going to have to deliver more à la carte options to consumers. i think they're going to demand it because i think people are seeing screens all around them and they want to watch what they want to watch when they want to watch it. >> host: howard buskirk time for one more question. >> guest: the agreement between time warner cable and cbs.

do you foresee a lot more of these types of disputes and will this end up costing consumers? >> guest: that's a good question. the vast majority of retransmission consent negotiations for carriage of broadcast stations on cable and satellite systems go on uneventfully. we never hear about them but every now and again we do have these disputes and when the disputes get heated sometimes consumers will turn on the television set because they want to watch the news a game or their favorite show and they will find they get a dark screen just like consumers recently did in new york, los angeles and dallas. that is not a good thing i any measure. we should want that to happen for extended periods of time. i think the consumers honestly deserve a refund if that happens for a longer